Even when the final product doesn't meet with total success (e.g. 'Memoirs of an invisible man'), I'll always be interested in anything John Carpenter does, including projects a bit outside his usual purview. I'm given to understand that this was an especially busy and challenging production for Carpenter, and one with which he was ultimately dissatisfied, but that doesn't inherently mean a picture can't be worthwhile. On the other hand, save perhaps for some of the names involved, I'm not sure that there's anything terribly special or unique about this TV movie. It's enjoyable and worthwhile on its own merits, yet whether by the nature of the medium for which it was produced, or maybe the conventions of storytelling in 1979, this 'Elvis' feels weirdly constrained, limited, and linear. It's more the simple connecting of dots than the telling of a singular story, which doesn't feel quite right for either the subject matter - the life of a cultural icon - or the film-making career of a master who reliably gave us one outstanding classic after another.
Understand: for the most part this is just fine, well made as it tells the man's tale. Given the lack of especial creative control one easily comprehends how Carpenter felt put out, but his direction here is perfectly suitable. The cast give capable displays of acting (though it's all too readily obvious that Kurt Russell was dubbed over for performance sequences). Donald M. Morgan's cinematography is swell, and crew behind the scenes turned in good work all around, including production design, costume design, and hair and makeup. I don't take any issue with the editing of Christopher Holmes and Ron Moler, unless one supposes that the cuts they made may have contributed to the shaping of the narrative as it presents, taking shortcuts to proceed from one beat to the next. And that's the real key here. Whether it was Holmes and Moler's doing alone, or the path dictated by producers, or specifically the screenplay whipped up by Anthony Lawrence, I think the life story of Elvis Presley as communicated in this feature is treated weakly, with focus that is inappropriate for his stature.
There's no particular introduction of characters; "Colonel" Tom Parker, for example, the singer's long-time manager, is just there one day, without any explanation. There's no delineation of the roles that figures play in Elvis' life, not manager Parker, friend and bodyguard Red West, father and business manager Vernon, nor others. There is no meaningful transition from one segment of Presley's life to another; the plot progresses from "making singles" to "big star with contract changing hands" to "now making movies" to "he's going to be in the army now," and so on and so on - very curt, brusque, and matter-of-fact. And there's even less attention, in some cases none at all, given to the Big Picture ideas of where Elvis fit into the social and cultural landscape. We get at most single lines devoted to how Elvis helped to introduce "black music" to white audiences, or to the uproar caused by his style of singing and especially dancing (we get passing reaction to a headline calling him "Elvis the Pelvis"); even the extreme success and popularity he enjoyed feels like it's understated, and frankly underrepresented. Instead the storytelling is peculiarly formulaic and conformist, and progressing along distinct pre-established guidelines: a longer sequence in which Elvis chases down a man who punches him; a scene of Elvis singing a romantic song to Priscilla when they first meet; more weighty, dramatic songs sung alone at a piano at a point in the plot where Elvis is feeling ruminative; Priscilla dancing alone in Graceland while Elvis is away; etc.
There's nothing wrong with examining the man instead of the legend, and that is indeed what it feels like the intent was here. It's just unfortunate that in the most fundamental of ways even that intended approach gets shortchanged. Even the biggest and most important ideas are presented very flatly and flimsily, like a facade with no underlying substance. Some scenes transpire with unnatural speed, or with so little significance, that there's nothing to take away from them, and they could have easily been cut outright. All too rarely does it seem like this is firing on all cylinders. The result is a tableau that too often feels tawdrily melodramatic, if not simply empty. I don't think 1979's 'Elvis' is altogether bad, but it's sadly ill-considered, common, and unremarkable, and only part of the movie it could have been. The cast, the crew, and Carpenter deserved a better film - and so did Elvis, and so do we viewers. It does have earnest value to claim, and if one is a huge fan of someone involved, that's probably the best reason to watch. Yet for as plainly evident as it becomes of how troubled this picture is, and for as very long as it is at nearly three hours, it's hard to give anything more than a very soft, cautious recommendation.
Understand: for the most part this is just fine, well made as it tells the man's tale. Given the lack of especial creative control one easily comprehends how Carpenter felt put out, but his direction here is perfectly suitable. The cast give capable displays of acting (though it's all too readily obvious that Kurt Russell was dubbed over for performance sequences). Donald M. Morgan's cinematography is swell, and crew behind the scenes turned in good work all around, including production design, costume design, and hair and makeup. I don't take any issue with the editing of Christopher Holmes and Ron Moler, unless one supposes that the cuts they made may have contributed to the shaping of the narrative as it presents, taking shortcuts to proceed from one beat to the next. And that's the real key here. Whether it was Holmes and Moler's doing alone, or the path dictated by producers, or specifically the screenplay whipped up by Anthony Lawrence, I think the life story of Elvis Presley as communicated in this feature is treated weakly, with focus that is inappropriate for his stature.
There's no particular introduction of characters; "Colonel" Tom Parker, for example, the singer's long-time manager, is just there one day, without any explanation. There's no delineation of the roles that figures play in Elvis' life, not manager Parker, friend and bodyguard Red West, father and business manager Vernon, nor others. There is no meaningful transition from one segment of Presley's life to another; the plot progresses from "making singles" to "big star with contract changing hands" to "now making movies" to "he's going to be in the army now," and so on and so on - very curt, brusque, and matter-of-fact. And there's even less attention, in some cases none at all, given to the Big Picture ideas of where Elvis fit into the social and cultural landscape. We get at most single lines devoted to how Elvis helped to introduce "black music" to white audiences, or to the uproar caused by his style of singing and especially dancing (we get passing reaction to a headline calling him "Elvis the Pelvis"); even the extreme success and popularity he enjoyed feels like it's understated, and frankly underrepresented. Instead the storytelling is peculiarly formulaic and conformist, and progressing along distinct pre-established guidelines: a longer sequence in which Elvis chases down a man who punches him; a scene of Elvis singing a romantic song to Priscilla when they first meet; more weighty, dramatic songs sung alone at a piano at a point in the plot where Elvis is feeling ruminative; Priscilla dancing alone in Graceland while Elvis is away; etc.
There's nothing wrong with examining the man instead of the legend, and that is indeed what it feels like the intent was here. It's just unfortunate that in the most fundamental of ways even that intended approach gets shortchanged. Even the biggest and most important ideas are presented very flatly and flimsily, like a facade with no underlying substance. Some scenes transpire with unnatural speed, or with so little significance, that there's nothing to take away from them, and they could have easily been cut outright. All too rarely does it seem like this is firing on all cylinders. The result is a tableau that too often feels tawdrily melodramatic, if not simply empty. I don't think 1979's 'Elvis' is altogether bad, but it's sadly ill-considered, common, and unremarkable, and only part of the movie it could have been. The cast, the crew, and Carpenter deserved a better film - and so did Elvis, and so do we viewers. It does have earnest value to claim, and if one is a huge fan of someone involved, that's probably the best reason to watch. Yet for as plainly evident as it becomes of how troubled this picture is, and for as very long as it is at nearly three hours, it's hard to give anything more than a very soft, cautious recommendation.