Presley talent 'priceless gem' --> Nov 1966!

[Igotstung]

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse. And, as stated in the quote above, there were opportunities for excellent songs to be used in the movie, but Elvis often didn't take up the offer. Choosing Sing You Children instead of Saved? Not finishing the recording of Leave My Woman Alone? Two ridiculous choices. By Elvis.

You do not see the irony in the following statement in the context of this article as well as what we know of Elvis' career at this point?

"Not many realize that Elvis selects every song he records," said "Spinout" Director Norman Taurog. "He works actively on his career. He senses what is best for him and feels he owes his fans the best he can deliver"

[pmp]

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse. And, as stated in the quote above, there were opportunities for excellent songs to be used in the movie, but Elvis often didn't take up the offer. Choosing Sing You Children instead of Saved? Not finishing the recording of Leave My Woman Alone? Two ridiculous choices. By Elvis.

You do not see the irony in the following statement in the context of this article as well as what we know of Elvis' career at this point?

"Not many realize that Elvis selects every song he records," said "Spinout" Director Norman Taurog. "He works actively on his career. He senses what is best for him and feels he owes his fans the best he can deliver"

He was not lying. Elvis DID select every song for the movies - but each time from the crock of sh*t offered him because of the publishing issues that HE AGREED TO, and by constantly going back to the in-house hacks who were writing for him.

I've got to the stage where I have no sympathy for him. He was his own worst enemy. He might have been naive, but he wasn't stupid. This was Elvis's philosophy:

"I’ve had intellectuals tell me that I’ve got to progress as an actor, explore new horizons, take on new challenges, all that routine. I’d like to progress. But I’m smart enough to realize that you can’t bite off more than you can chew in this racket. You can’t go beyond your limitations. They want me to try an artistic picture. That’s fine. Maybe I can pull it off some day. But not now. I’ve done 11 pictures and they’ve all made money. A certain type of audience likes me. I entertain them with what I’m doing. I’d be a fool to tamper with that kind of success. It’s ridiculous to take it on my own and say I’m going to appeal to a different type of audience, because I might not. Then if I goof, I’m all washed up."

So, for all Elvis telling us how ill the movies made him feel in that 1972 interview, I just don't believe it. He wasn't forced to make a certain type of film by anyone other than himself, and he basically says so in the above quote from 1962. By 1967, he was quipping that he'd played a racing driver about "25 times." Well, whose fault was that?

[Cryogenic]

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse.

Yes, it does sorta remind one of the aphorism that President George W. Bush famously screwed up: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Aye, will be interesting to see the other bits in the series and if nothing else it's an intriguing time capsule in terms of what was being reported at the time. Clearly not all negative in the wider press, even if his biggest fanzine Elvis Monthly- penned by the most loyalist Elvis fanatics of all time, summarised his movie output of this era as ' puppet shows for not overly bright children...

Ouch. That's quite the dig. I wonder if the dismissive wording was inspired by the puppets scene in "G.I. Blues"?

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse. And, as stated in the quote above, there were opportunities for excellent songs to be used in the movie, but Elvis often didn't take up the offer. Choosing Sing You Children instead of Saved? Not finishing the recording of Leave My Woman Alone? Two ridiculous choices. By Elvis.

You do not see the irony in the following statement in the context of this article as well as what we know of Elvis' career at this point?

"Not many realize that Elvis selects every song he records," said "Spinout" Director Norman Taurog. "He works actively on his career. He senses what is best for him and feels he owes his fans the best he can deliver"

He was not lying. Elvis DID select every song for the movies - but each time from the crock of sh*t offered him because of the publishing issues that HE AGREED TO, and by constantly going back to the in-house hacks who were writing for him.

I know his biography is reviled and limited in various ways, but quoting from "Elvis" by Albert Goldman (I think this quote concisely explains and explodes the vice-like doublespeak and doublethink that Elvis was caught up in):

To the very end of [their] relationship, people in show business were saying that Elvis and the Colonel were the perfect combination. The Colonel had freed Elvis of all the time-consuming, bewildering and exasperating problems of business so that he could devote himself entirely to his art. Yet, when you’re a commercial artist, as was Elvis, it’s questionable whether there really is any difference between art and money because the art is done for the money and the money is the measure of the art. Though Colonel Parker insisted that he never interfered in any way with Elvis’s art, the truth is that by managing Elvis’s business as he did, the Colonel exercised a profound and decisive effect on Elvis as artist. Though he didn’t tell the singer what songs to sing, he set him up in the music business in such a way that Elvis could not sing any song that was not offered to him by his publishers, who, in turn, confined Elvis to the kinds of music that they could obtain on their terms and actively discouraged him from reaching out for better music from sources that the publishers could not control. Likewise, though the Colonel never told Elvis how to read even one line in all his movies, by working out the formula for the Presley picture and by confining Elvis to such pictures throughout his film career, the Colonel destroyed Elvis as a film star. The division between art and business proved in practice, therefore, an unreal distinction.

Source: "Elvis", 1981, Albert Goldman, excerpted from "Chapter 33: Easy Come, Easy Go"

Is this not an apt summation of the basic problem?

That said...

I've got to the stage where I have no sympathy for him. He was his own worst enemy. He might have been naive, but he wasn't stupid. This was Elvis's philosophy:

"I’ve had intellectuals tell me that I’ve got to progress as an actor, explore new horizons, take on new challenges, all that routine. I’d like to progress. But I’m smart enough to realize that you can’t bite off more than you can chew in this racket. You can’t go beyond your limitations. They want me to try an artistic picture. That’s fine. Maybe I can pull it off some day. But not now. I’ve done 11 pictures and they’ve all made money. A certain type of audience likes me. I entertain them with what I’m doing. I’d be a fool to tamper with that kind of success. It’s ridiculous to take it on my own and say I’m going to appeal to a different type of audience, because I might not. Then if I goof, I’m all washed up."

So, for all Elvis telling us how ill the movies made him feel in that 1972 interview, I just don't believe it. He wasn't forced to make a certain type of film by anyone other than himself, and he basically says so in the above quote from 1962. By 1967, he was quipping that he'd played a racing driver about "25 times." Well, whose fault was that?

I've got to disagree with you a little bit here. Elvis' life can certainly be read as a cautionary tale, and, no doubt, many lessons can be drawn from it. But we also need compassion and a deeper understanding. Yes, we shouldn't simply make excuses for the artist, but we should also try and respect the complexity of the psyche of the artist governing the artist's genius and his decisions (even indecision is a decision).

You ask, for example, "whose fault was that?" The only credible answer, in the final examination, is Elvis himself, of course -- and even Elvis places the blame at his own feet in the 1972 interview you mention (saying something to the effect, regarding his stalled career in Hollywood, "I guess it's nobody's fault except my own").

There's also a major difference between the Elvis of 1962 and 1967. In 62, his career was flying high and he was basking in a new-found confidence; or, at the least, enjoying the comforts implicitly conferred within a new tier of success. He had gotten past the chaos, the tumult, the dizziness, the controversy of the 1950s, and he had made it through the army, and even mourned the death of his mother (though this pain would be with him the rest of his life), re-establishing himself upon his return to civilian life as both a golden-voiced interpreter of smooth, gleaming pop songs and, as his last few pictures were making clear, a leading man of the silver screen with natural charisma and easy appeal. His life, in many respects, was in a good place in 1962 and Elvis had little cause to worry. But five years on, with a string of low-budget B-movies dragging behind him like clattering soup cans, his chart dominance largely a thing of the past, the music scene flowering all around him and Elvis (mostly) on the periphery, doubts about the longevity of his career hitting home, and even his marriage to Priscilla pending, I think it's fair to say that Elvis now felt the sting of regret, the ache of taking the wrong fork in the road, and worse, the anxiety of not really knowing how to fix his life, short of pushing a massive "RESET" button (which, for various reasons, he was powerfully disinclined to do).

It also makes a basic sort of psychological sense that Elvis would be a different person -- or "the same but different" -- in 1967, versus his 1962 self, because he was now an established man in his thirties, rather than a young and slightly green person (then) still in his twenties. Elvis seemed acutely aware of the passing of the time, the accumulation of milestones, and no doubt, this acuity was sharpened by the British Invasion and a surfeit of handsome, cheeky, apple-cart-upsetting, attention-grabbing interlopers; almost all of whom were his juniors. They were the new wave, he was the old. In 1962, he was a broken-in sports car whose paint job still shone, whose interior was still opulent, whose performance was still sleek and reliable. By 1967, however, that same sports car, while still packing a punch, had now effectively been superseded by a bunch of new models -- Elvis was vintage and had the feeling he couldn't quite keep up anymore; and besides, the race course was different, the spectators gave off a different vibe, and did he really want to compete, anyway? Yes, deep down, he probably wanted to be back in the game -- but how?

When you think about it, there's some karmic symbolism in Elvis playing a racing car driver "25 times" and Elvis' own hyperbolic exaggeration of that number -- in effect, he actually was a racing car driver, doing the same circuits, the same laps, over and over. He'd more than proved his abilities. But the courses he was allowed to compete on were constraining. In 1962, he was ready to compete on his terms; in 1967, he had come to realise his terms weren't actually doing him many favours. But again, how to break out of those patterns; how to keep much of his existing life intact (again, that deep-seated aversion to a major RESET) and still go somewhere new?

In a way, Elvis was both the luckiest and least luckiest 50s sensation to make it and still have a career in the 1960s. There's a well-known quip from Bing Crosby that comes to mind: "Frank [Sinatra] is a singer who comes along once in a lifetime, but why did he have to come in mine?" Equivalently, Elvis was probably asking himself a similar question about The Beatles and all the other marvellous music and major social upheaval of the 1960s. I think, in a way, while fascinated by it all but reluctant to really admit it, and perhaps lacking the faculties to properly articulate it, Elvis felt the world was moving a bit too fast in the 1960s. His fame came virtually overnight in the 50s, and as Elvis said in New York in 1972, there were a lot changes that he and his family had to quickly adjust to -- including being drafted into the armed forces and facing the prospect, and constantly haunted by the fear, that his career was essentially now shipwrecked and over. Additionally, with the death of his mother happening concurrently, there was no time for Elvis to ever properly grieve or come to terms with these psychological tsunamis. In his mind, one way or the other, he had to simply get on with it. And what good did it do for a proud man of the South to talk about his feelings, anyhow?

I think, in some ways, it was that very "getting on with it" that actually marooned Elvis in the mid-sixties. He didn't really have the guts or the guile to stand up to Parker, no. But he also trusted Parker; and, frankly, after his mother's passing, the most concrete and reliable presence he had in his life, in the form of another human being who seemed to be working for him day and night, who had his back, who could protect him from the wider world and really deliver, was Colonel Tom Parker. So he stuck it out and went along with the bulk of his decisions. This might seem peculiar, but I think we need to remember not only Elvis' impoverished beginnings, or even his deferential personality, but just how stunning and awesome his arrival and impact on popular culture actually was. Elvis' life was kind of this great big run-on sentence from the time "That's All Right" was played twelve times in a row by Dewey Phillips. That was the birth of Elvis, well and truly, as a force of nature, a singing sensation, a music man like nobody ever heard, and a commercial entity all in one. That was the first day of the rest of Elvis' life. Everything rapidly became a blur from that point forward.

Hunkering down with Parker and doing all those silly movies was, in a way, Elvis willfully choosing to cast down an anchor -- not purely some naive money-grab decision, but a way of staying sane, of having some kind of structure to his life that made sense: his safe place in the eye of the hurricane. Whether that hurricane was real or perceived, Elvis just felt that he and Parker had made history together, and there was no man better placed to provide continuity, keep the money rolling in, and plainly and simply, prolong his career (and therefore hold back the chaos) than Colonel Tom Parker.

Elvis' particular psychological disposition -- one that Sam Phillips read early on as intense shyness -- meant that he also carried inside him a lot of pride; and an aversion to humiliation. It is with some irony, then, that he would end up committing his name and signing contracts that led to such movies as "Kissin' Cousins", "Harum Scarum", and "Clambake", and the resultant soundtrack recordings that made him, even at a glance, seem like yesterday's news (to put it mildly). But I believe Elvis was was also afflicted with -- due to, or inflamed by, the rapid onslaught of his fame and rapid success -- impostor syndrome, and also bedevilled by its cousin, tall poppy syndrome. When showing people his various awards at Graceland, he was fond of shaking his head in amazement and confessing, "Sometimes, it feels like all this happened to somebody else". In the 1960s, the very decade in which he did his own version of turning on, tuning in, and dropping out, he basically wanted to know, in the words of Larry Geller, "Why me?" Why did all this great fame, wealth, acclaim -- and, last but not least, raw, beautiful talent -- become concentrated in a single package called Elvis Aron Presley? In a way, he didn't trust what happened; and he was afraid, genuinely afraid, of making a false move and making it all go away.

All that aside, Elvis basically exists and perpetually manifests in two basic realms: the realm of music and the realm of movies. These are magisteria that are intractably entangled, and yet, sometimes, in the career of Elvis, one almost seems to be revoking or revolting against the other; which, at times, brings with it an almost unbearable level of tension and angst when we contemplate, watch, listen to, read about, write about, champion, criticise, or otherwise do anything that either enlarges or diminishes Elvis Presley in our minds and in our communion with others (whether they be fellow admirers, haters, collectors, commentators, or anything in-between). Such, perhaps, are not merely the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but the way genius tends to go. This hypertensive duality of Elvis is nothing if not frustrating; but I believe it also keeps the man (and his music/movies) endlessly fascinating. What's more, there is a third realm, often regarded as inferior to the other two in wider discourse on these mediums, but one that is unavoidable when discussing the full brilliance and luminance of Elvis Presley: the realm of television.

One of the greatest ironies in Elvis' tapestry of work (or "play") is that it was really television on which, or through which, Elvis was at his most provocative and incendiary, and it was television that was with him when he was born (the early, surviving 1956 appearances) and television that was there again when he died ("Elvis In Concert"). And yet, despite making thirty-three movies (essentially one movie for every year of his life since middle school), Elvis only actually made three television specials in which he was the main attraction; and even then, spread out over a period of nine years, in symmetry with this "starting from age nine" analogy (with the last of the three more the product of desperation than anything else). That's a ratio of more than 10:1. Slightly more than ten movies for every television special! Or one "television special" Elvis per ten "silver screen" Elvises. One of the tragedies here is that Elvis and Parker gorged their way through Hollywood in the 1960s, but seemed to give scant thought to building any kind of legacy through television -- even the Comeback Special was originally ill-conceived as a middle-of-the-road "Christmas special". If they could both have been a bit more daring, a bit more open to variation, a little more keen on actually shaking things up, and not so intent on putting all their eggs in one basket (albeit, a well-made basket that carried a lot of eggs, at least), the whole tenor of Elvis' career might be very different today.

The story of Elvis' life is that he got lost in movies, and then everything else, little by little, got lost along the way. One wishes Elvis had had more of a backbone and trusted more in his own lights, rather than just having his name up in lights. In that lengthy 1972 interview, a decade on from his laidback 1962 leading man confidence, Elvis makes the startling confession that no amount of money could have made up, in essence, for the deep dissatisfaction he felt inside (when his movie career gradually went off the rails). Although he doesn't blame Parker -- again, he verbally puts the blame on himself ("Put The Blame On Me" -- a sombre rejoinder) -- it is interesting that he speaks so candidly off the record, knowing that anything he said there was potentially going to be put in "Elvis On Tour". Almost as if he were making some move in his head, just ever so slightly, to dismiss Parker; if something else would only spark and another pathway open up to him (and, of course, a year later, he did technically fire Parker for a brief period of time, albeit after an extremely volatile confrontation). It is a tad ironic that "Elvis On Tour" ended up being his last theatrically-released film (and the only one shot "raw" on 16mm in a cinema verite style), and that it was, finally, devoted to music, to Elvis as a stage performer, singing big standards in a big way, but virtually all this candid talk between Elvis and the producers was ultimately excluded. Elvis, for so long, had silenced himself; and then, when he opened up, he was silenced. Yet maybe it was a forgivable sin. It was as if, through some unspoken conspiracy between Elvis and the filmmakers, everyone had finally decided on both the wisest and most sublime option of all: to let his music do the talking.

[Igotstung]

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse. And, as stated in the quote above, there were opportunities for excellent songs to be used in the movie, but Elvis often didn't take up the offer. Choosing Sing You Children instead of Saved? Not finishing the recording of Leave My Woman Alone? Two ridiculous choices. By Elvis.

You do not see the irony in the following statement in the context of this article as well as what we know of Elvis' career at this point?

"Not many realize that Elvis selects every song he records," said "Spinout" Director Norman Taurog. "He works actively on his career. He senses what is best for him and feels he owes his fans the best he can deliver"

He was not lying. Elvis DID select every song for the movies - but each time from the crock of sh*t offered him because of the publishing issues that HE AGREED TO, and by constantly going back to the in-house hacks who were writing for him.

I've got to the stage where I have no sympathy for him. He was his own worst enemy. He might have been naive, but he wasn't stupid. This was Elvis's philosophy:

"I’ve had intellectuals tell me that I’ve got to progress as an actor, explore new horizons, take on new challenges, all that routine. I’d like to progress. But I’m smart enough to realize that you can’t bite off more than you can chew in this racket. You can’t go beyond your limitations. They want me to try an artistic picture. That’s fine. Maybe I can pull it off some day. But not now. I’ve done 11 pictures and they’ve all made money. A certain type of audience likes me. I entertain them with what I’m doing. I’d be a fool to tamper with that kind of success. It’s ridiculous to take it on my own and say I’m going to appeal to a different type of audience, because I might not. Then if I goof, I’m all washed up."

So, for all Elvis telling us how ill the movies made him feel in that 1972 interview, I just don't believe it. He wasn't forced to make a certain type of film by anyone other than himself, and he basically says so in the above quote from 1962. By 1967, he was quipping that he'd played a racing driver about "25 times." Well, whose fault was that?

Never implied that he was lying, he had no reason to. The irony, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the corner Elvis was in at the time ( which he was ultimately responsible for ) contrasted with the cheery, all- well- in- Elvisland tone of the article.
" He reads medical research"!! Poor Taurog.

I get that you have got to the other side of rose-coloured- spectrum stage, which is a totally valid point of view, given Elvis' repeated, maddening blunders.

But making bad choices doesn't mean that there is no awareness of the slow trainwreck of life. The 62 interview sounds defensive coming from someone who insisted throughout 50s that he didn't want to sing in his movies and wanted to be a serious actor.

The 72 interview sounds utterly sincere. There is self pity and resentment, yes, but also palpable sense of loss. Combined with what we know of his background, one does feel sorry for wasted opportunities. More than movies, the years of mediocrity in musical output is exasperating. Afterall, whether he was capable of becoming an actor he wanted to be is debatable. What is not debatable is what he could have done musically.

Anyway, this is what I get from the article. We will agree to disagree here.

[Cryogenic]

BUT the only reason he was having to choose the best of a bad bunch was because he went along with Parker's policy on publishing. That was Elvis's choice. And we also need to remember that the likes of Saved, Leave Thar Woman Alone, You Don't Know Me etc were among the songs available for the Movies. So the songs didn't have to be bad.

.
It's an easy thing to say after the fact and could be applied to nearly every decision that was made regarding Elvis' career. But the fact is, at least to that point in time, Elvis trusted Parker and let him make the business decisions.

And repeated the same error over and over again. The first time? OK,he gets a free pass. The second time? OK, Elvis wasn't good at pushing for what he wanted. The third time and beyond? No excuse. And, as stated in the quote above, there were opportunities for excellent songs to be used in the movie, but Elvis often didn't take up the offer. Choosing Sing You Children instead of Saved? Not finishing the recording of Leave My Woman Alone? Two ridiculous choices. By Elvis.

You do not see the irony in the following statement in the context of this article as well as what we know of Elvis' career at this point?

"Not many realize that Elvis selects every song he records," said "Spinout" Director Norman Taurog. "He works actively on his career. He senses what is best for him and feels he owes his fans the best he can deliver"

He was not lying. Elvis DID select every song for the movies - but each time from the crock of sh*t offered him because of the publishing issues that HE AGREED TO, and by constantly going back to the in-house hacks who were writing for him.

I've got to the stage where I have no sympathy for him. He was his own worst enemy. He might have been naive, but he wasn't stupid. This was Elvis's philosophy:

"I’ve had intellectuals tell me that I’ve got to progress as an actor, explore new horizons, take on new challenges, all that routine. I’d like to progress. But I’m smart enough to realize that you can’t bite off more than you can chew in this racket. You can’t go beyond your limitations. They want me to try an artistic picture. That’s fine. Maybe I can pull it off some day. But not now. I’ve done 11 pictures and they’ve all made money. A certain type of audience likes me. I entertain them with what I’m doing. I’d be a fool to tamper with that kind of success. It’s ridiculous to take it on my own and say I’m going to appeal to a different type of audience, because I might not. Then if I goof, I’m all washed up."

So, for all Elvis telling us how ill the movies made him feel in that 1972 interview, I just don't believe it. He wasn't forced to make a certain type of film by anyone other than himself, and he basically says so in the above quote from 1962. By 1967, he was quipping that he'd played a racing driver about "25 times." Well, whose fault was that?

Never implied that he was lying, he had no reason to. The irony, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the corner Elvis was in at the time ( which he was ultimately responsible for ) contrasted with the cheery, all- well- in- Elvisland tone of the article.
" He reads medical research"!! Poor Taurog.

Nailed it. Thank you for this blast of much-needed clarity.

I get that you have got to the other side of rose-coloured- spectrum stage, which is a totally valid point of view, given Elvis' repeated, maddening blunders.

They weren't really blunders, I think, as much as they were, a person caught up in certain habits, repeatedly taking the path of least resistance. And also a protection mechanism; almost -- almost -- an act of defiance. The Beatles? The Rolling Stones? You like those guys more? Fine, I'll stick to my crappy beach-bikini movies then. Withdrawing his light from the world, but still shining subtly from afar. Or wanting to.

But making bad choices doesn't mean that there is no awareness of the slow trainwreck of life. The 62 interview sounds defensive coming from someone who insisted throughout 50s that he didn't want to sing in his movies and wanted to be a serious actor.

There's a bit of defensiveness there, perhaps, but it's worth remembering that Elvis gave at least one interview in the 1950s (someone else can fish it out) where he laid out his thoughts on acting, with similar sentiments about learning by osmosis, progressing organically, a bit at a time, and not wanting to force anything by intellectualising the process or going to acting school. In both time periods, Elvis seemed concerned with not getting too hung up on technique; rather, he hoped to learn as he went. A noble aim, in some ways, and relatively humble. But, arguably, there's also a fraidy-cat element detectable, where Elvis seemed concerned with stepping out of his lane and maybe quickly winding up over his head; as if he would quickly discover the limits of his talents and be disgusted or otherwise made to feel inferior by being confronted by those same limitations.

On more of a personal level, Elvis is quite relatable to me. Various people, you see, have told me I should pursue writing seriously, instead of holding down some crappy job in the ass-end of nowhere. But, like Elvis, I seem reluctant to rise to that more professional level, to push myself, to walk the harder path and actually take more concrete action; as if concerned that I would quickly collide with the hard wall of reality, find it too unyielding, and never like myself, trust in my abilities, or find any solace in my "talent"(s) again.

The 72 interview sounds utterly sincere. There is self pity and resentment, yes, but also palpable sense of loss. Combined with what we know of his background, one does feel sorry for wasted opportunities. More than movies, the years of mediocrity in musical output is exasperating. Afterall, whether he was capable of becoming an actor he wanted to be is debatable. What is not debatable is what he could have done musically.

That's probably the bottom line here. Elvis failed to flourish as an actor within an indifferent and ruthless Hollywood system -- a system he neither understood nor seemed particularly willing to understand or make great strides within. And, at the same time, while pursuing the Hollywood path nonetheless, his music suffered. He neglected the one aspect about him that truly was fit to be called genius. And yes, when he was at his best musically, he was truly unassailable.

[jurasic1968]

Absolutely agree with you, Cryogenic.