Split Decision: Elvis

Team Experience has been pairing up to debate the merits of each big awards season movie. Here's episode 11 with Chris James and Glenn Dunks duking it out over Elvis. The series resumes will resume for a few final episodes after the nominations.

CHRIS: Well, well, well, Glenn. We meet again. Excited to talk about Elvis with you. Previously, I was a sourpuss about the cinematic excesses of Babylon. While I have mixed thoughts on Elvis, I think the excesses of this movie are more in service of the film and its titular subject. I went with a few friends to the Chinese Theater in Hollywood to watch it on opening night and had a blast reacting both with and at the movie. As a friend said to me, "maximalism is meant to provoke a response, even laughter." At the very least, Elvis is an enjoyable watch.

It's always good to see a movie for adults become a box office success, especially in the post-pandemic era...

However, I find it a far cry from Oscar-caliber (whatever that means nowadays). Austin Butler is a dead ringer for Elvis, but appears to be modeling the rock and roll legend rather than bringing him to life. That's mainly because the frenetic Baz-ness of the movie turns Elvis into a glitter encrusted montage, devoid of any scenes. It's a skin deep ride, but a fun one nonetheless. Enough of my grumpy ramblings -- maybe I'm being too harsh. What did you think of the movie?

GLENN: I don't know about being harsh. You respond how you respond. And Elvis (or any Baz Luhrmann movie for that matter) is by nature made on such an elevated tightrope that it's easy to sway wildly from one side of another before tipping entirely to another altogether (i know that makes no sense physically, but let's just roll with it).

However, the main reason that I liked Elvis so much can be explained thusly:

• Bohemian Rhapsody.
• Rocketman.
• I Wanna Dance With Somebody.
• I Am Woman.
• Respect.

Here is a movie with a point of view! With an ambition of scope and style and with the money to actually pull it off. So many great artists have been dealt truly appalling movies. Ugly movies built entirely from YouTube playlists. At least in Elvis when his life story follows traditional musician biopic patterns, the film doesn't.

CHRIS: I agree with you on three out of five of those movies. Elvis has quite a deal more flair and artistry than the paint by numbers job of I Wanna Dance With Somebody (even though I had fun with it) and Respect (completely devoid of fun). The less said about Bohemian Rhapsody the better, a poorly cobbled together mess of a movie with a hateful core. However, I prefer Rocketman’s jukebox musical with an overly earnest heart. Yes, the basic beats of the music biopic are followed to a tee. However, the fantastical musical moments helped inform the inner turmoil of Taron Egerton’s Elton John. I felt his self-loathing and it was a strong emotional core that powered Elton’s actions.

Contrast that with Elvis. Our titular character never feels like he has much agency over his story. He’s a talented person whose life is molded and shaped by Colonel Tom Parker, a cartoon character grotesquely overacted by two-time Oscar-winner Tom Hanks. On one hand, I admire that Baz Lurhmann and company always chose entertainment over coherence. But each moment of Hanks’ performance feels like The Duke from Moulin Rouge! mixed with the Hamburglar. In playing the Colonel so broad, Elvis suffers as a character. How can this person not see how their manager is exploiting them? It never feels like Elvis as a character has motivation in the story.

What were your thoughts on the performance duet of Austin Butler and Tom Hanks?

GLENN: I have found myself warming to the Tom Hanks framing device, if for no other reason than we can't truly know what was going on in Elvis Presley's mind when all of this was happening. If it was Luhrmann's desire to turn his story into a carnival ride, it almost makes sense that the man pulling the levers is our way in. Of course, I could just be making all of this up like Colonel Parker invented his own back story. Who can really tell? Although now that you've bought it up, Hanks' Parker strikes me more as a Harold Zidler, no? 

I must say, I have been surprised with the level of love and approval that Elvis has received from the man's family (RIP Lisa Marie Presley by the way - check out her Elvis-referencing track "Lights Out" if you're curious about her own music career). I guess I just don't associate Luhrmann's bull-in-a-china-shop approach to something that they would have so vocally supported. But I think it kind of goes back to my original point. He is a filmmaker who wasn't interested in just doing a greatest hits package. Instead, Luhrmann (and his gaggle of co-writers) treat Elvis Presley with the respect and the reverence that he deserves while acknowledging that he himself had respect and reverence for others, most pointedly, black soul and blues musicians. You can never accuse Luhrmann of not barrelling full force towards his goal, and there's no mistaking he has a vision of who Elvis Presley was to the world and wants to show it to you. It just so helps that Luhrmann makes big, cinematic explosions and that is entirely appropriate for Elvis Presley. He never forgets that he is making a movie that he expects people to pay money to go and see!  He gives us an Elvis show in motion, which is why I loved it.

CHRIS: You’re completely right, I chose the wrong Moulin Rouge! touchstone for Hanks. After all, Harold Zidler really did “make it snow,” didn’t he?

Also, yes, rest in peace Lisa Marie Presley. Sometimes I’m skeptical when a biopic has the support of the family. It can often signal that a movie is too deferential to its subject. One could see Elvis through that lens a bit, framing Elvis Presley as a talented lamb led to slaughter by the Colonel. That also feels like the crux of Butler’s performance, effectively eliciting sympathy from the audience. Still, the movie doesn’t shy away from Presley’s vices, even with the PG-13 sheen. That speaks to your point about Luhrmann the Showman. I agree that his allegiance is towards the audience, putting on a show at all costs.

But at what point is showmanship at odds with painting an accurate portrait of a subject? You mentioned how the film addressed the influence of black musicians on Elvis Presley. It felt like an “acknowledgment” only. In going just surface level on so many points of Elvis’ life and influence, the movie neglects to interrogate Presley and his own actions. What does it mean for a white man to get success through embodying the style of black artists? Every plot thread is picked up and set down almost immediately. Elvis is sad about the assassinations of MLK and Robert F. Kennedy, so he changes up his Christmas special set. Okay, moving on, time to go to Vegas for a different vignette. Elvis veers close to a hagiography, even if some of the movies you mentioned earlier are much guiltier of this crime.

That’s a critique that hasn’t mattered much when it comes to Oscars, though. Elvis is a fun watch and leaves voters emotional and entertained in equal measures. It’s not a question of “will Elvis do well at the Oscars,” but “HOW WELL will Elvis do at the Oscars?” Right now, it seems locked for nominations in Picture, Actor (Butler), Costume Design, Makeup & Hairstyling, Production Design and Sound. I’d add in nominations for Cinematography and Film Editing. Already, that is eight nominations and it’s conceivable that Baz Luhrmann could get into Director. If Tom Hanks surprises in Supporting Actor, we might have to look at it as a Picture dark horse. What’s more likely is this broad level of support could propel Butler to a Best Actor win. What do you think Elvis’ Oscar performance will look like, Glenn?

GLENN: Well, I don't think Hanks is getting in (although that category is remarkably thin with genuine contenders).

I've been bullish on Elvis's Oscar prospects since day one. Picture has always seemed like a dead cert to me (I've been ranking it number four in the TFE predictions since round one and have seen no reason to put it any lower—a miss at this stage would be shocking). Butler, too, has felt like the lockiest of locks in a Best Actor category with stiff competition, particularly as he is one of only two celebrity biopics of the year (the acting branch's favourite genre) that actors have the choose from this year (Ana De Armas being the other—and I think she will get nominated, too, for similar reasons although her task will be much tougher). Catherine Martin could very well win her fifth and sixth statues (for just three movies!) in costume and production design, and I think the flashy editing, sound and makeup could easily get in but could easily miss depending on the whims of the branch to Luhrmann's flamboyance. I'd personally enjoy seeing Baz get his overdue nomination, and I would really love to see the extraordinary Australian cinematographer Mandy Walker get in as just the third female nominee in history. I have been obsessed with her work since The Well in the mid-'90s.

To wrap our conversation up, I'd like to pose a question: following The Great Gatsby and Elvis, what classic American subject matter should Baz choose to make his next film about and conclude his unofficial Red White and Blue Curtain Trilogy (suggest your own names below). I feel like something Broadway is too obvious for a man known for his razzle dazzle, but maybe a remake of Damn Yankees would work. Just think of the baseball uniforms that Catherine Martin would design!

CHRIS: You mean “Red, White and Baz”? Love this question! So far he's done a literary adaptation and a biopic so far, so I like your idea of mixing it up with another genre like the musical. As a lone Australia supporter, part of me would love him to go further back and do some audacious tale of the Gold Rush in California. He can be gonzo with the blank canvas of the Old West. My other gut take of the question would be to glitterize a musical like Newsies. Never before have poor kids worn rhinestone studded caps. Reservations on Elvis aside, I’ll follow Baz wherever he takes me. It’s always an experience.

other "split decisions"

• All Quiet on the Western Front - poetic or vacuous?
• Avatar - extraordinary or recycled? 
• Babylon - thrilling or interminable?
• Banshees of Inisherin - ?
• Everything Everywhere All At Once - essential or exhausting?
• The Fabelmans - joyous or phony?
• TÁR - utterly engrossing or underwhelming?
• Triangle of Sadness - facile or multi-faceted?
• The Whale - moving or just plain bad?
• All Quiet on the Western Front - haunting or boring?

Comments

[Sad Man]

I don't get all the nominations this HORRIBLE, horrible film got. I'm the biggest Moulin Rouge! fan and I really like Romeo + Julet, too. Everything else Baz has done is pretty bad, but I think this one might be his worst.

[chasm301]

I'm a huge Baz fan and I'm always down for his chaotic maximalism. The remove from Elvis as a character is actually what I liked best about this. The first 90 minutes or so are fantastic - tracking Elvis as the symbolic face of a changing America. It reads like a superhero origin story (that comic book panel scene!) and it's an approach that worked for me. I kinda loved Tom Hanks' ridiculous performance. It falls flat for me in the last hour where the rise and fall plot arc becomes conventional and the bizarre excess of the first half subsides.

[Michael Schroeder]

This film is very interesting. I and my best friend enjoyed watching it. We just watched a boring movie and played vampire survivors together ^^