- Did Elvis hang a lightning bolt around his neck when he was a boy?
- No. In Baz Luhrmann's Elvis movie, we see a young Elvis at a gospel church revival tent with a large yellow lightning bolt hanging around his neck. "That didn't happen," says Elvis expert Billy Stallings.
- Is the creation of Elvis' first single for Sun Records, "That's All Right," depicted accurately?
- Not exactly. When Elvis (Austin Butler) is in the process of creating his first single for Sun Records in the movie, we see him watching an old bluesman stomp through a soupy, gloomy version of Arthur Crudup's "That's All Right." Butler's Elvis then combines this version with a gospel choir's elevated rendition of "I'll Fly Away," resulting in something similar to the version of "That's All Right" the real Elvis Presley produced.
The problem here is that while blues and gospel certainly inspired Elvis Presley, he was also influenced by rock 'n' roll and country music as well. The latter is an important element that's all but absent from the film. This seems to have been an intentional omission by director Baz Luhrmann in order to play up the idea that Elvis was appropriating black culture and benefitting from doing so, all while his black contemporaries weren't being given the same opportunities. While the latter is certainly true, it's a distortion of the facts to ignore the other influences that inspired the real Elvis Presley, specifically Southern country.
In reality, Elvis' sound was more unique than it was ever an exact appropriation of any one genre or genres. It could also be argued that the elements of blues and gospel in his music provided a gateway for people to discover blues and gospel artists.
- Did Colonel Tom Parker discover Elvis while Parker was working as a Carny?
- No. Early in Baz Luhrmann's Elvis movie, Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks) watches as a nervous Elvis Presley (Austin Butler) takes the stage and starts to perform. After Parker observes a girl in the audience collapse into screams, he comments, "She could have eaten him whole ... It was the greatest carnival attraction I'd ever seen. He was my destiny." In real life, Elvis didn't meet Colonel Tom Parker at a carnival and Parker didn't convince him to become his client in a literal hall of mirrors. By the time Colonel Tom Parker met Elvis, Parker hadn't been a carny in years. He was already managing hit country music artist Hank Snow at the time. Colonel Parker's assistant saw Elvis perform and suggested to Parker that he should take a look at him.
- Did Elvis Presley join the Army?
- In the movie, when Elvis (Austin Butler) is nearly arrested for his gyrations on the stage, his manager, Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks), figures that if Elvis joins the Army it will help to repair his image. Elvis Presley did not enlist in the U.S. Army, he was drafted.
- Is Elvis Presley's 1968 comeback special depicted accurately?
- No. The entire sequence that covers this in the movie is littered with fiction. The Elvis movie true story confirms that he did shrug off Colonel Parker's plan to do a calm Christmas show and instead delivered a sizzling rock performance. However, the meeting at the Hollywood sign between Elvis and the show's musical director and producer never happened in real life. In Baz Luhrmann's Elvis movie, Bobby Kennedy is assassinated in the middle of the taping of the show, but that's not when he was killed in real life. Then there's the silly moment in the film where an entire Christmas set is built to fool the insistent Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks) into believing that the comeback special was going to be a Christmas show. That never happened either. In real life, Elvis stood up to the Colonel.
I just don't understand why Priscilla and Lisa Marie both raved about this movie and cried and said it was so accurate. I will now have to see it just to figure that out. Because I remember the newpapers and TV news when Elvis was drafted. What is the point of pretending he enlisted? Maybe accuracy is not important to his ex wife and daughter. Maybe the movie captures his essence somehow and that's all they want.
He died 45 years ago, but I just found out today that doctors disagree on the cause of death. I did not ever know that he tripped on a cord and hit his head on a bathtub in 1967, causing an autoimmune disorder that affected every organ. People carry on repeating the accepted story that he died from overeating and taking prescribed drugs.
I understand that biopics want to create some kind of spectacular story, woven from facts plus fiction. In his case there is no need to invent things. His life was remarkable enough as it was. I will try to watch it just to look for the parts that Priscilla thought were so accurate.
--------
Edited to say: see my post below after watching the first hour. I found the parts that Priscilla thought were accurate. They were. Including parts I saw which she did not see. It literally shows that he was drafted. She met him after he joined the army. I saw him before that. There are some scenes made up for dramatic effect like the meeting of E. and Tom Parker in the funhouse - for dramatic effect. It does not bother me because they got the overall effect right. Namely the way he burst on the scene and America was divided into love him or hate him, all the controversy - some of his dialogue is what he actually said - and his musical influences - showing Big Mama Thornton and Little Richard among others - all of this was done creatively and it is accurate. Clearly it is done for today's audience using Sesame Street-like techniques, and that is OK. It's not perfect, but it's a worthy attempt to show that incredible era so that people who weren't there can get a glimpse of what it was like.
Yes, I was watching and wondering how on earth Priscilla and Lisa Marie were on board of this movie and promoting it. Priscilla saw real Elvis. And character in the movie was not it. I look at videos of real Elvis and he was FUN person in them. Austin Butler just looks like he was born depressed in this movie.
I watched that "1968 comeback special" on You tube and Elvises real attitude has nothing to do with how it looked in the movie.
Serena Williams was just happy that Hollywood did a movie about her at all and that Will Smith starred in it and movie had awards recognition. So she swallowed that they used her name and made a movie about her father just because Will Smith wanted awards. And it wasnt movie about her achievements.
Queen members always used every opportunity to make money from Freddie Mercury legacy so they supported his biopic which was bad also.
But Priscilla and Lisa Marie were not in that desperate situation. There was no need for them to support this bad movie. They have to get those royalties every year regardless. Maybe they felt that Elivises popularity is fading and were happy that movie brought up him again. Maybe they were paid few millions also.
But this movie was so inaccurate. And Buz Lurman went full woke and basically accused Elvis to be racist and stealing music from black people with that cultural appropriation nonsense that woketards are are so obsessed with. Many young people will see this movie and think: "So this Elvis guy just stole music from blacks. He saw them singing and dancing and just copied it. What a fraud".
Why would Priscilla and Lisa Marie be so stupid to agree with this narrative....
And problem is that Elivises life is so well known, people know all the aspects of his life. So its really noticeable how inaccurate this movie is.
And Baz Luhrmann recreated many of Elvises real life performances. And they were going for so long that it just felt like he did them only so that people would later compare it on youtube with real performances. I never want to rewatch this movie because it was just depressing. I only want to watch documentaries about Elvis because they would tell how his life really was.
I've watched the first hour of this movie and I had to stop and write my surprised reaction. The inaccuracies don't matter because the movie is portraying exactly the speed and electrical vibes and the love and hate in his rise to stardom. I was there, and saw it all either on tv or in person or in the press. I saw him on the Louisiana Hayride and Steve Allen. The moviemaker is doing it in the style of a music video, using techniques like animation. But the events shown are real - I can vouch for it. This is somewhat in the style of Shakespeare by taking the real life story and both simplifying and dramatizing it. The few anachronisms are not ruining it. We realize it's made by kids who were not there and yet they are still getting the total effect right. And by the way they literally show that he was drafted. Why that fact check says that the movie shows him "enlisting" I have no idea, but it's incorrect. I was prepared to be critical of this movie but it's forcing me to compare it to my memories, which come flooding back because they are getting the feel of that era absolutely right - and get this - it matches my memories. When my family saw him on stage just before he went in the army, he fell down and rolled around with the hound dog, and they show this in the film just before they show he was drafted. I never expected this to draw me in to the actual past I lived in. The period of Louisiana Hayride and Sun Records up to being drafted is exactly right. So it doesn't matter that the actor doesn't look much like him and the clothes are not exact copies of his actual 50s wardrobe and Tom Hanks plays Col. Parker. Watching this, youngsters can get a feel of what it was like when Elvis came on the scene. In a very striking way. So now I understand why Priscilla cried. I almost cried...some of the things in it really happened - I was there and saw them - and they portrayed them THRILLINGLY. And this is less than half I've watched so far.
Thank you for giving the movie a chance and if you liked the first part, I think you are really going to enjoy the rest. The 68' comeback special and what they do with it is electrifying and moving. and his Vegas stuff is phenomenal. Austin Butler, though not looking 100% like Elvis makes up for that in style, charisma, accuracy, heart and electricity.
OP here just wants to complain at the fact this isn't a 100% accurate documentary. If he wants that, he can watch the 1979 movie with Kurt Russell or the 2005 Mini Series with Jonathan Rhys Meyers. He'd be surprised at how many similar things this 2022 film matched or borrowed from that series. Oh....and there was a lot of factual mistakes in those too...You are completely right that this is a stylized and artistic version of Elvis's rise and fall from fame. We feel the excitement of his arrival and become entranced by not only his performance but everyone else's.
I'm 40. I grew up listening to oldies music. The Monkees and Beatles being my favorite. I knew the basic details of Elvis's stories to the point that this movie was perfect for me because I remember certain things, didn't know other things, and researched and 'found the truth' about what I questioned. I KNOW that Elvis had already recorded Tutti Fruitti on his first RCA record...something that already happened in the film...about 6 months prior to the Little Richard scene. So his 'man, I'd love to record that' stuff was completely inaccurate. But you know what? I don't care because that's one of my FAVORITE scenes in the film. If you can't enjoy the actor who played Little Richard's performance, this movie isn't meant for you.
Though I would love to go rebut his points, it's a waste of my time as anyone who goes to read up in the 'what's wrong' will immediately see that Baz took those stories from something and used them to tell the story.
Please come back and tell me what you think of the rest of the film. It's just beautiful.
Thank you for your post. I finished watching it and here are my comments. I'd say the rest of the movie after he was drafted was harder to watch because of the evils of Col. Parker. I was not following the news in 1981 and did not know about Col. Parker being exposed as a grifter who robbed Elvis and prevented him from branching out, tricking him into destroying his health by playing at a casino every night and burning himself out. I knew the rumours about his telling Elvis he could not tour overseas, or accept certain movies. Now seeing it laid out that was horrifying to me. I did not know how he schemed to get his debts paid by promising the casino Elvis would play there perpetually, while telling E. it was only for six weeks. I was stunned by them suddenly showing the real Elvis at the end. They showed one entire song which was near the end of his life, to hammer home the point that this is what Col. Parker did to him. Still giving his all despite a swollen face, clearly not well. It is heartbreaking but it brings it all together. As I said before, the little mistakes in the timeline or the made up scenes don't matter. It's the overall story, a tragedy. I cried at the end. If anyone still wonders why Priscilla cried, it's impossible not to cry.
Regarding the actor, there were many times when I forgot it was an actor. He got the body movements and even the stuttering right. He lost himself in the role, much more so than most impersonations. I remember the Kurt Russell version - he looked nothing like E. but absolutely captured his essence, the way he read the lines.
About the emphasis on black performers, that was needed for today's audience to show how E. was so ahead of his time and in fact, as it showed, he created a new genre from his country, rockabilly, gospel, and blues influences. People really were shocked or thrilled or disgusted when he came on the scene. Rock and roll was a scandal in 1956 and was heavily criticized in the news, but my family loved it. This included, at the time, Bill Haley and the Comets - he was just a country singer who had zero influence or style but his movie Rock Around the Clock exploited this new music. Consider at the time that Pat Boone was a huge teenage idol. He was bland, pleasant, not electrifying like Elvis. I think John Lennon once said that before Elvis there was nothing. They showed a brief glimpse of a (thin) Fats Domino - who was a major star then with Ain't That a Shame and Blueberry Hill. So it wasn't a vacuum with just blandness and then Elvis. At the time I did wonder why there were two version of Ain't That a Shame on the radio - both Fats Domino's and Pat Boone's. I think Little Richard was also more of a star than the movie indicated. His music was on the radio at the same time as Elvis's version of Tutti Frutti. Anyway, overall the movie got the important things right and it moved me deeply to revisit those times. It's just that the image most people have of Elvis is the Vegas white jumpsuit....and younger people need to know he was not always a Vegas entertainer. He fought for artistic integrity and was thwarted constantly.
I should mention some of the other key actors. His mother Gladys was portrayed beautifully. It was a major crisis in his life when she died young. The movie says she became an alcoholic out of worry. I always wondered why a young woman would get hepatitis and die. His father was not given much of a personality or role in the movie; his sidekicks were not fully introduced or fleshed out - they just appeared - but I understand it would take at least a mini series to explain everyone's role in his life. This speeded up version still did the job of telling the story. I absolutely loved the collages showing the young boy Elvis, the beginning rocker and the Vegas act. Just to cement his full development from early influences to Vegas act. I don't want people to think E. was the Vegas act. This movie tells the truth that Col. Parker forced him to become that, and it killed him.
Priscilla and Lisa Marie were given a minimum of screen time, but I understand why. There was just too much to show. They had to focus on his gruelling schedule and his fervent attempts to have artistic integrity. I appreciated the scenes where he insisted on doing the shows his way, especially the Singer special, which I saw at the time. People might not realize he was a has been because of the British invasion, and this brought him back. This was evident in the polite manners of the girls gathered around the stage. When I saw him in 1957 we were in the 7th row in front of the stage. To the left, there were teenagers in the first row screaming and fainting. There were cops to keep order. His performance was everything you see in the movie and more. At the end, the announcer said "Elvis has left the building." This was to avoid fans trying to mob him backstage. He was whisked away by car because otherwise fans would try to tear at his hair and clothes.
I agree completely with you. When I first checked out the trailer I was skeptical because Austin Butler looks like the worst casting disaster in recent memory.
But after actually watching the movie his portrayal is suprisingly really dang good! I understand why they chose him, a manly Elvis-lookalike wouldn't do the same because how the movie tries to do. It tries to paint a story, not to photograph. The inaccuracies don't really matter, unlike recent biopics like Bohemian Rhapsody which I thought the inaccuracies hindered the movie.
Oh, and I hate other Baz Lurhmann's movie, especially The Great Gatsby and Australia. They suck.
I'll admit I never saw a Baz Lurhmann film prior to this so had no idea what to expect. I don't follow directors like other people do so when they said 'Baz Lurhmann directed this!!!' I thought 'um....ok...so?' I loved it.
I do feel I'll have to go take another look at his other films but the subject matter never interested me. I was in high school when Romeo and Juliet came out. I remember the hype around Leo and Clair Danes. I remember 'Love Fool' being all over the radio. But I didn't have any interest in this modern take...they tied to make us watch it in school once for English class and I was just NOT interested. Mulin Rouge had no interest to me though it probably should have with my interest in theater. But at the time, I hated the idea of using other people's music and essentially making a 'cheap' jukebox musical. But looking back, I think I would love it.
I'll get around to them at some point, but I'm happy just sticking with Elvis for now.
I found all his other films unwatchable. Somehow I guess his music video technique just did not interfere with the way he told Elvis's life story. My daughter is pointing out all the mistakes and I have to agree they are mistakes in casting, hair, voice, wardrobe etc. but I overlooked those for the feeling of excitement generated by the movie, which is just as it was in real life.
I bring up the Little Richard moment as probably my most irksome change. As I said above, I LOVED the scene as written but when you know that history, knowing he was equally as popular at the time as Elvis, making him the unknown new comer was odd. They could have used any other up and coming singer. But I try and think of the scene as something ironic and comical because BB will tell Elvis that if he sang that song, he would make more money that LR would ever see. Maybe he did; I'd have to look at numbers...but Elvis's version doesnt nearly have the same energy LR gave out in the film. So it would probably go on to make him more money than Elvis's version. So I dunno. If I were to choose one 'inaccuracy' to maybe play around with change; that would be it. But at the same time, I loved the scene and loved the guy playing Little Richard and wish him and BB were in the film more.
I thought their '68 sequences were wonderful and if you play with clips of the original it fills out a really interesting picture. I also thought the film audience was a little understated compared to how they were in the actual special. The girls (film) didn't seem sure of what to think...some seemed awkward while others seemed enthused...meanwhile you got the girls (special) legit screaming, fighting over scarves/hankies and shouting about how cute he was. But then I remember that this is in the Colonel's perspective and in HIS mind, the audience was not receiving Elvis well. he even tries to tell Elvis how fake the audience was to almost like gas light him. So we see at the end, it was a huge success and we see what the audience 'really felt' in reality. whether that was Baz's take or just my mind manipulation, I don't know but that's my story and I'm sticking to it, lol
There was originally a 4 hour cut of this film. the director was told to cut it down to a more reasonable theatrical length and so we got the 2 hr 45 minute cut. I think he did his best making sure everyone was there and the plot was coherent while still keeping his artistic vision true with the time he had. But this film is just as epic as any Marvel or Lord of the Rings movie and I feel I NEEEED to see this extended cut. Baz said that isn't in the picture for a few years but I hope the reception and interest in this movie helps push that to a sooner date because I would LOVE to see what they had to take out.
Well I didn't know there was a 4 hr. version. That explains a lot. Someone who knows the story wouldn't mind that they showed 2 seconds of Steve Allen from the back, omitted the Ed Sullivan Show, didn't show his early romances, didn't show how Priscilla and Elvis met and fell in love, and so many more missing scenes. They show just enough to keep the basic narrative. It should have been at least a 2 part miniseries to expand and include certain scenes. Now I'm questioning why i like it so much. Many don't like it including my own daughter. Here I am liking it when usually I have no patience for anything that's not perfect. How can I explain? I guess it is the sentimental memories.
I think they put subliminal messages into the film because I didn't think I would love this movie as much as I would. I've seen it 9 times in the theater and that's insane for a non action/super hero film for me. But I can't get enough of it. I just like the fast editing and nostalgia and the performances. Once I got it in my head that this was a different type of film than a normal bio pic, I was able to sit back and enjoy the ride. Everyone sees bio pics a different way. I'm sorry you're daughter doesn't like it. She's too caught up in what's wrong with it instead of the artistic license used. My mom was like that. I think she wanted to hate it just because I liked it. I would say 'look how well Austin got that move right or listen to how well he hit those notes' and all she could say was 'They didn't do 'My Way' or 'Always on my mind!' and when you try and explain why the director was going for, she immediately shuts me down with 'I lived it'. ok.... so I just go to the movies and watch it for my own sheer enjoyment.
Yea, the 4 hour cut made sooooo much sense to me after seeing the movie. I also started out feeling it was a little shallow and had wanted to see extended or more scenes. After multiple viewings I really started to pick up on nuances and feel like it WASN'T shallow; it's just not beat over our heads like other movies. But I still want to see Ed Sullivan. I want to see more concert footage. I want to see his money spending generosity. I really see this like when Lord of the Rings came out. They had to cut it down to something the general audience would get and understand. the Tolkien fans wanted more and so the extended editions came out. and the scenes were amazing. You can see why most were cut (timing and pacing) but those extra scenes ad SOOOO MUCH to the overall story. So I hope we get to see what Baz had. Just because I love the characterizations so much I just want more.
I saw the Singer comeback special when it first aired. It was 1968 and Elvis had not been "hot" for years, and they hired girls to sit around the stage, pretend to scream, etc. They were super polite. This is what I read at the time and it was obvious they were not real fans. His original fans were adults by then. Yes, I know that many original fans remained loyal, but none of them were there, and even if they were, they would not have screamed and fainted. That was a teenage thing. I witnessed it at the E. show in 1957 and at the Beatles show in 1965. Without exception the hysterical ones are teenagers who are caught up in the overwhelming experience. The Singer comeback special was staged!
Problem with it that many people dont read official biographies and dont watch documentaries. Then they watch those Hollywood bio-movies where they lie about half of stuff. Then think that this is how it was in real life.
Elvise’s older fans know how it was. And they dont pay attention at inaccuracies. But young people will watch it and believe its true. Specially that narrative that woketards try to push for years that Elvis appropriated and stole music from black people. While in reality he just sang everything that was known and popular in that time.
Yet Woke Luhrmann here straight out said that: "Look all songs of Elvis were stolen when he saw how black people were singing them".
The hall of mirrors is supposed to be a metaphorical thing about how Parker led someone who didn't know how to improve his career into where he wanted to go. Very cute, but I'm tired of that old kind of trick as well.
I was alive for the real Elvis, and this was a poor imitation. I was hoping Tom Hanks had a boffo performance as a fake Col. Tom Parker -- everything was obviously fake. Tom Hanks stank. It didn't get good until the real Elvis appeared at the end. Sad.
I assume Priscilla and Lisa Marie were hoping to market the movie. They had to have a bit of interest in it since it had clips of the real Elvis, and they could only use those with their permission.
To me, remembering how electrifying Elvis really was on stage, this was pathetic. Poor Austin Butler didn't have half of Elvis's moves. That they couldn't see it stank is dumbfounding.
One can believe Elvis, though with notable security outfits, took matters into his own hands, carrying a weapon onstage at one point. After the assasinations of icons MLK jr. and Kennedy he would definitely be wary of sharing a similar fate. It seems the death threats tied into Col. Parker's oversight. But upon Elvis' own life-risking behavior there'd be inducement putting on a show.