Elvis (2022) and the Utter Mediocrity of Biopics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2022
- Whether you’re upgrading your iPhone or not, head to casetify.com for their latest iPhone 14 Impact Case Series,
as well as their cases for iPhone 13 or earlier devices! Go to casetify.com/broeydeschanel today to get 15% off your order!
Follow Brooks and Carlo if you're interest in learning more about music history!
Brooks: / soulsugarjoint
Carlo: / mezza.cowbell
Thumbnail by Hannah Raine: / hannahmraine
FOLLOW ME
Patreon: / broeydeschanel
Instagram: / broey_deschanel
Twitter: / deschanelbroey
SOURCES
Amy Absher, The Black Musician and the White City, “From South to South Side: Musicians in 1940s Chicago”, University of Michigan Press. (2014).
Dennis Bingham, Whose Lives Are They Anyway?: The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre, Rutgers (2010).
Peter Carlson, “When Elvis Met Nixon”, Smithsonian Magazine (2010).
George Frederick Custen, Bio/pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History, Rutgers (1992).
Yohana Desta, “Elvis: What Did Black Artists of the Era Really Think of Presley?”, Vanity Fair (2022).
Erika Doss, Shrines and Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries into the Sacred, Amsterdam University Press (2008).
Lucy Fischer, “Marlene”: Modernity, Mortality, and the Biopic, Biography, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Winter 2000).
Rosa Fisher, “Constructing Tin Pan Alley: From Minstrelsy to Mass Culture”.
www.pearsonhighered.com/asset...
Joel Gordon, “Film, Fame, and Public Memory: Egyptian Biopics from Mustafa Kamil to Nasser 56” International Journal of Middle East Studies Vol. 31, No. 1 (Feb., 1999).
Chris Jancelewicz, “The ‘whitewashing’ of Black music: A dark chapter in rock history” Global News (2021).
Mitchell K. Hall, The Emergence of Rock and Roll: Music and the Rise of American Youth Culture, Routledge (2014).
Cheryl L. Keyes, “The Aesthetic Significance of African American Sound Culture and Its Impact on American Popular Music Style and Industry” The World of Music
Vol. 45, No. 3, Cross-Cultural Aesthetics (2003).
“B.B. King”, American Roots Music: Oral Histories, PBS.
www.pbs.org/americanrootsmusi...
Lehtisalo, Anneli, “As if Alive before Us: The Pleasures of Verisimilitude in Biographical Fiction Films”. New Readings 11 (2011).
Eric Lott, “All the King’s Men: Elvis Impersonators and White Working-Class Masculinity”, Race and the Subject of Masculinities.
Tessa Maclean, “Preserving Utopia: Musical Style in Baz Lurhmann’s The Great Gatsby”, Literature Film Quarterly, 2016.
Parke Puterbaugh, “Little Richard: ‘I Am the Architect of Rock & Roll’ Rolling Stone (1990).
Elsie Walker. “Pop Goes the Shakespeare: Baz Lurhmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet.” Literature Film Quarterly 28:2 (2000).
Rob Warden, “Elvis Volunteered to Inform for the FBI, 1970 Memo says”, Washington Post (1978). 
Развлечения
CASETiFY’s iPhone 14 Impact Case Series is now available at casetify.com! Go to casetify.com/broeydeschanel today to save 15% off your order!
I love the idea you hinted at of doing a video essay about Spencer!
adding a little music and better audio mixing will improve your videos a lot, message me i am an audio engineer and producer from Miami
Hey ! The name of Mr Dreyfus is Alfred not Richard
There’s a person who says they will make a real true Elvis movie. I hope they do cause it will show real actual factual movie. Elvis was a very generous kind caring person as well as a talented. That wasn’t played out in this one.
You missed it.
Austin was so fantastic that got a historical @2 mind standing OVATION . I feel sorry for you,as with your mind set you can't just enjoy . Priscilla and his daughter at one point of his performance even cried as the resemblance was so well done you'd think it was ELVIS ...
Imagine a scene where Elvis is trying to convince Nixon to allow him to legally carry drugs around at all times, we got robbed.
Elvis was such an interesting dude and I'm sad we got none of that in the biopic
There is a movie about that very event. It’s called Elvis & Nixon.
Apparently that scene was filmed too. Maybe in the director's cut we will see it.
Actual he tried to stop street drugs!!!
@@Verbsdescribeus Who needed Street drugs when pharmaceuticals were this good back then?
The thing about most biopics, particularly those centred around musicians, is that they tend to be incredibly formulaic. They usually start out with the protagonist as a child, fleshing out their childhoods and usually antagonistic relationships with their parents. Then, they enter into abusive or messy relationships, substance abuse issues, and it either ends with their tragic death, or a hopeful ending.
Dewey Cox. You don’t want no part of this, Dewey!
“Antagonistic relationship with their parents” *The Wrong Kid Died* .
Elvis had all of this AND romanticized the messy part of his life which is the biggest problem I have with this film. They only mentionned that Priscilla was 14 when she met Elvis for like 2 seconds (and I believe they only said "teenager")
ff4f ruclips.net/video/YDvd1nYaiPE/видео.html
@@choicethetaurus self promoters are annoying but like- this song is pretty good so ur fine
I, Tonya was FABULOUS imo -- it had such a clear, artistic POV from the beginning (allowed by the framing of Tonya as a semi-unreliable narrator and the nature of the mystery surrounding the Nancy Kerrigan situation) that it really worked.
I hate how the movie left Oskana out
And midori ito
It ony a movie
@@scr0ngle108 no shit
I really liked it as well, like you said all they had to do was establish her as an unreliable narrator and it saved the film from a lot of the same trouble other biopic have.
When I learnt that Colonel Tom Parker was Dutch and an illegal alien I genuinely laughed out loud. From reading about Elvis I always assumed Parker was from Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that; the fact that his real name was Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk and that he just stole his name from a soldier he met when he joined the army will never stop being wonderfully funny and odd to me.
It’s worse than that. There’s some circumstantial evidence that he fled The Netherlands to escape arrest for murdering a woman. He was also diagnosed as a psychopath by army doctors.
@@neneshubbyIt gets a whole lot worse than that surprisingly. Apparently the woman was pregnant at the time of her death.
@@cocob0l0Twofer one
@cocob0I0its actually worse than that, it turns out...
nah i got nothing, i was just enjoying this escalation
I think one reason why the social network is so good comes from the fact that none of the actors are trying to replicate the real people they're portraying. nobody is excessively made over or costumed to be a carbon copy of their real life counterpart, and the performances come from a place of genuine creative innovation rather than imitation. Jesse eisenbergs mannerisms in character aren't especially similar to mark Zuckerberg in real life, same for all the other characters. of course there's other reasons the film is so good, but I think not caring about imitating or replicating the people the film was based on, and preferring to interpret them as suits the film, is a big contributing factor
Agreed! I loooove The Social Network
I love the dialouge in that movie. Aaron Sorkin is such a good writer, especially that opening scene.
It's so good you forget it's a biopic!
It's so good cause it was directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin
@@mayam9575 Steve Jobs achieves the same effect. Also Sorkin.
I think the trap a lot of biopics fall into is just replicating famous moments and loosely tying them together with thin narrative threads. The best of this genre usually are the little moments that we hardly knew about. But at the heart of it, I think they all just kind of feel toothless in that its always just a minimally critical look at someone without really reflecting the nuanced context of their importance to the culture surrounding them.
-Terrence
this is why bohemian rhapsody was on of the worst biopics ever.
I thought this was a very good and respective piece about the movie. My grandparents were his neighbors as kids. My grandma was honestly pretty disappointed (now that I know a lot more) about he sort of took off and ran to Hollywood. I heard that he did comeback. But it seems from my families talks it was just more of maybe a family member or two would pop in. My grandmother told me that was disappointed that he never talked about civil rights. So do some of my older relatives still living . It almost seems like it was mad up (I’m just being honest). I honest think that the movie company waited alittle too late to tell this version of his growing up story. It’s like everybody’s almost gone now? Really? Did not think that families from the town is one of the bigger questions. That I’m beginning to think now. I listened to a podcast where Tom hanks talked about the black community down there (I love his work!). It just seemed like it was quick and he was making it up. I though the saddest part was one his friend Sam Bell came to visit and he couldn’t see him
Because of segregation smdh!
i feel like there are so many interesting people with wild stories who weren’t super famous but would still lend well to a biopic. honestly like half of the stories told on drunk history could be a full movie
Different movie here but what makes the Steve Jobs movie (the one starring Michael Fassbender, not the Ashton Kutcher version) so good is precisely because it ISN’T a conventional biopic. I feel like it allows the movie to escape the typical formulaic structure of most biopics and really lets you get to know what kind of person Steve Jobs truly was as opposed to the skin deep caricature we were shown in Kutcher’s rendition. (Not Kutcher’s fault by the way)
The movie was good what the hell are u talking about 😖😖
What I also don't like about biopics of male artists are the women in the movies. Often they're reduced to being passive supporters or jealous wives. When the artist in question had an affair, the other woman is depicted as a manic pixie dream girl, a muse for the artist. In contrast his wife at home is depicted as boring, jealous and someone who cares "too much" about the financial situation of the family and doesn't truly understand the artist's vision. Examples for this are "Control" (movie about Ian Curtis of Joy Division, which I really like apart from this trope) or "Walk The Line" about Johnny Cash.
i agree. imo a film that does this well is first man.
perhaps you want them twerking in a law office right? Btw, if the characters were actually like that, that's what you see in the movie
@@ellelawliet1747 Bruh, but when you see it in many biopics, it will become wary, besides, biopics really don't tell the real story, they are mostly here to whitewash/romanticize people.
@@ellelawliet1747 and you know that because you where there, right?
@@enough2715 have you learned how to read? I said "if they were". I can make the same dumb question to you then. Where you there to tell they were not?
a biopic I actually found quite innovative and heartfelt was "love and mercy", about Brian Wilson. what makes that one so strong is that it really focuses in on two parts of Brian's life (the making of pet sounds in the 60s and his life under an abusive therapist in the 80s) and shows how they contrast each other as opposed to trying to cram his whole life into one movie (this also gives more time to flesh out the people portrayed). additionally it's very deliberate with its use of sound and the concept of music as a motif. I highly recommend it as a rare gem in the genre
Elliot Roberts made a good video about love and mercy, talking about these points
@@lyricelizabeth9860 his video is the whole reason I know about it! love his stuff
I looove that movie. One of the few movies I actually own, I thought the acting and sound design were great
Yeah, that’s one of the best biopic movies. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing Brian Wilson live thrice.
The secret to making a successful biopic is to simply focus on a confined time period I’d say no more than 5 years. To focus on a defined time period means there must be something super interesting that happened that deserves the full length of the movie as opposed to spanning his 70 years of life
This movie works incredibly as a parody of Hollywood biopics. The bombastic over-editing and gauche montages that shuffle us through the story skip past any and all possible nuance or explanation. The lifeless characters are paraded in front of us and posed next to seemingly important events, both personal and historical, and yet none of them, Elvis included, are explored with any depth. It is a stunning example of movie surface, of empty style and kinetic frenzy signifying nothing but its own flashy, gaudy frames. In some ways, it seems as if it was made in direct opposition to the purposes of biography.
ouuuu love this reading
I honestly thought this movie was a comedy, and then I learned it wasn’t a parody.
the film is very honest, in the sense he doesn't try to go to superficial sentimentalism or psychology. Elvis the man doesn't interest it, it's Elvis the icon. And Elvis the icon, is kitsch and loud.
Unfortunately I feel like you've put more thought into this than Baz did. In a vacuum you're 100% spot on but in the context of his work this is just more of the usual
I believe the upcoming Weird Al biopic is going for that angle-intentionally this time.
I think the movie intentionally acts like a circus and Vegas style because it’s Parker’s pov of Elvis’s life. Elvis whole life was the greatest show on earth to Parker and also his biggest gamble.
Perfect comment. Did you understand the proposal of the film. 👏👏
Exactly. The reviewer failed to see that.
But it still failed to give him humanity. I took from the movie that Parker was a horrible crook who should have been jailed/expulsed a long time ago. And yet the movie tried to make him the unsung (heh) antihero... but he was utterly irredeemable! I think Luhrmann painted himself into a corner because he cast Tom Hanks, and everybody loves Tom Hanks 🤷♀️
Guess what? I saw Elvis all through the Vegas years, starting in '69, and in my life, having seen many entertainers, Elvis WAS the greatest show on earth. Both men and women sat in that audience with their mouths hanging open when he walked out, as he was that amazing and charismatic. I never witnessed anything like that in my life. He didn't even have to speak. The downward spiral was not as Baz shows in Vegas, but after Priscilla left. He did the Aloha from Hawaii charity event in 1973 seen by one and a half billion people worldwide via satellite. No internet . Priscilla had left, and it showed, though he looked spectacular and his voice was amazing. Even into '74, in Vegas, he was still killing it, but after that it was downhill. Parker had him touring all over until he literally died. Elvis had more sold out concerts than anyone in the 70's. Yes, I researched this years ago. Sadly I watched the downturn all up close and personal. But lived in denial. I saw the movie 4 times. People on FB have seen 10-20-30+ times. This was first for me, to want to go right back and see a movie again the next week.
@Paul Gwyn I've heard your scenario and I've heard that it was actually more, because they were counting houses with satellite and there were many people in these houses around the world. So take it as you like and believe as you wish.
Honestly I don’t know if you watched it, but Rocketman is absolutely my favorite biopic. It is big, extravagant flashes out Elton completely. The musical style fits so well to Elton his entire self and career. The visuals are stunning, the acting everywhere is suburb. It truly shows the highs and lows in such an amazing and creative way. The cinematography and Colors are vibrant and dynamic. And Taron nails Elton. Also Elton was actually involved in the film. And he’s not dead…
I think what made Rocketman work in a way that certain other biopics (e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody) didn't was that Elton John was insistent on a warts-and-all depiction of himself and his story. His personal struggles and bad qualities aren't glossed over or sugar-coated, which makes Egerton's depiction feel more layered and three-dimensional, and thus we're better able to connect with him
@@christianwise637 you nailed it there!
@@christianwise637 nothing worked in rocket man, have people ever even seen an interview with young elton john? that guy was nothing like him. also since elton is a prodigious musician who doesnt write his own lyrics, but is so prodigious that he doesnt even know how he comes up with the music and could never make a movie that usefully shows you his process, the movie had to rely on lyrics in his songs to show "defining" moments in his life.... which he didnt write and which barely even match.
@@CarSVernon EUH his very best friend wrote a lot of his music? The one that knew him the best out of anyone? Also music can still relate to someone’s life even if you didn’t write it. That’s just ridiculous. That means that the soundtrack out of every movie doesn’t mean anything right? It’s not written by the characters so why would it fit? That doesn’t seem logical. Elton was involved with the process, many steps of the way. Also people in interviews are different then people outside interviews. You know that family and friends could have told Elton was like or more importantly he told HIMSELF what he was like.
yes rocketman is my absolute favourite film ever and I feel bad that barely anyone acknowledges it
Just want to point out that at 6:14, the person she is referring to is Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish army officer, not Richard Dreyfuss, who played Hooper in Jaws. Great video!
😂 I am glad you got here first. I hate being the “Um…actually” guy. At first, I thought she was doing a bit. Had to go back and watch that piece again to see if missed some deadpan, sarcasm.
@@runfonkey Same. This is such a massive error, it undermines credibility given that the attitude pulsing throughout is "I know better than you do." I create radio shows and podcasts; if I had committed such an embarrassing error, I would immediately re-edit in order to fix such an inaccuracy.
Remake, biopic, sequel, repeat...
You forgot reboot.
Honestly, Patrick H. Willems gave the single best review of Elvis: Congrats to Baz Luhrmann for making the world's first two and a half hour movie trailer
Which of Baz Luhrmann‘s films was he referring to with that comment?
@@cybercop0083 "gave the single best review of Elvis" it's literally right there in the comment 😅
I loved the movie but it did feel like a trailer, I kept waiting for a climactic moment, and it never came. :P
@@spacebar9733fr i thought the whole thing was the intro 😭 kept waiting for the movie to come (spoiler: it never did)
@@cicolas_nage
What’s wrong with Oppenheimer?
I think the movie was heavily stylized because it was Elvis from the perspective of Americans at the time as well as the colonel and it was heavily glamourized and romanticized to represent the “golden cage” that Elvis was trapped in the years leading up to his death. It worked in that regard and the final sequence of the film where it cut to the real Elvis singing his beautiful rendition of unchained melody hit extremely hard because it was almost like the movie lowering the curtains on itself and letting the audience experience Elvis’ beautiful voice during his last performance in its most raw form which I think was very powerful and a great choice by the director. The movie was over the top and crazy but maybe that was the point. We are viewing his life as it was perceived and is remembered by people on the outside until it cuts back to reality at the end.
The stylishness seems to be the point. It's not even meant to be that accurate, I don't think.
Who cares
I mean it's also a movie, so they're obviously going to embellish and dramatize it as well lol.
If you ever spend time listening to the actual Elvis, you'll understand what a humble and kind person he was. He never claimed to be an activist and actually took great pains to remain out of the political arena
Your comment dosent fit the virtue signalling narrative that she's attempting to spin. She's just a liar!
Yeah I think the problem is that she glosses over about the 1000 other things Elvis also did to help and stick up for black artists, like yes Elvis capitalised off ‘black’ songs but you can’t say that all of it was because of that, man was one of the best performers, had the talent and loved what he did and cared about it
That has to come into it too
@@reverseclouds1663 But also, I don't think the movie is necessarily trying to paint Elvis as a radical activist of his time. I think the film is making the point that one has to engage with the world around them to make vital art, and also that art is inherently political. When Elvis absorbs gospel and rhythm & blues as a child in a pre-segregation world, and later taps into the turmoil of the late-60's, he makes the most enduring art of his career. When the Colonel closes him off from the world in the 70's, his muse withers and dies.
As a public historian I find biopics really fascinating as a phenomenon. Especially since they present themselves as more akin to non fiction than historical fiction which they ultimately are. If an audience member is less familiar with the topic they may believe everything presented in a biopic at face value. I think historical fiction has its place but the traditional biopic is one of its worse forms.
That is my fear with biopics, that people will take what they are seeing at face value and believe it to be true. This is especially true of movies about historical figures or events like Braveheart and Amadeus. Alternately biopics deem to show a historical figure like Winston Churchill as a man of the people, and not the classist, racist man that he was. While we can still admire the contributions that the subjects of biopics have made to our world, we must refrain from painting them in an inaccurate light.
Not Elvis!
@@Verbsdescribeus yes Elvis. sm was wrong in that movie
I was a little kid when Elvis died, but honestly, this biopic seems pretty close to what he was like based on any interviews or news about him I ever read. His own family signed off on it and supported it. That it had his daughter's support, given how close she was to him, is meaningful. Is it weird that it didn't talk about his post-Priscilla relationships? Not if you consider who gave permission for it... which was Elvis' estate and heavily influenced by Priscilla. There's lots of study of Elvis out there. This doesn't seem super far off the mark, though it's hardly deep. But, given that it's already 3 hours, you'd need a miniseries to cover the stuff people would want to know, I would assume.
This was a great movie! Really good!
Haven't seen the whole video yet but as someone who is also tired of biopics, Rocketman and Spencer happen to be the exceptions for me. I definitely prefer it when these types of films take liberties to make themselves stand out. Rocketman was essentially a musical which I found to be very fitting for documenting someone like Elton John even though its actual narrative structure is formulaic to this sub genre. Spencer is mostly fictitious but it uses this narrative choice to condemn the royal family and helped the viewer dive deeper into Diana's head during a point in her life. The film is also gorgeously shot and scored.
Precisely, both of those biopics tried something new with their storytelling, and in my opinion, mostly succeeded.
Biopics that focus on a specific time in someone's life are a lot more effective for me. Like with Spencer - it was very clear about what it was trying to do, and could thus keep its focus and emotional intensity.
Check out Love & Mercy. Every other biopic, including the ones you mention pale in comparison in my opinion.
Yeah I came into this video like if she says something bad about Rocketman I will throw hands 😊
Rocketman was great and I'm not even that big of an Elton John fan. It deserved way more love from the Oscars
The part you said about legal issues in biopics I think was at least somewhat combatted in rocketman as Elton John was quite open to the mistakes and flaws of his own character and wanted them in the film. It was still probably a bit sanitised but it felt more real
Umm that’s not what she’s talking about she’s talking about real legal issues that can’t be talked about
spencer was maybe the only biopic-adjacent movie in recent memory that has impressed me. i think it’s because the plot of it is so contained to this one weekend, this one moment in time, and we the audience are only granted this small glimpse at the person, but the filmmaker is able to articulate everything we need to know about the person base on these limited interactions. it feels like the culmination of a life because it shows and doesn’t tell, it uses poetics, imagery, emotional beats rather than cold facts and events cobbled together into scenes. love spencer so much
I really hate music biopics and wasn't really a fan of Elvis but ended up going back a few more times to see it in theatres; it's so kinetic and stylised that it didn't feel like the standard biopic formula. I loved the Amadeus-esque narrative device of the whole thing being told by the villain in an sort of disjointed death hallucination. I don't think the point of the film is to inform the audience about who Elvis Presley, the man, was, but instead make the audience feel what it would've been like to experience Elvis the icon, at his height, before his image was turned into the Vegas impersonator cartoon character we think of now. My reaction was "Wow, I didn't realize how cool Elvis was."
The weakest points of the movie are the formulaic Priscilla moments obviously plugged in to please the estate.
What you said about trying to recreate the experience of an icon in his context resonated with me and I agree this movie accomplished that. It's hard post sexual revolution to fathom just how uncomfortable acts like Elvis would have been to a conservative, white cultural mainstream and I think this movie comes as close as possible to reconstructing the shock factor. My grandma has been a lifelong Elvis fan and this movie has been a big point of connection for us and I've been able to have illuminating conversations about the outlet for fantasy and exploration that Elvis as an icon that I didn't know about her before.
As someone who has read many Elvis biographies, I really enjoyed the movie. It worked - it was a carnival show supero comic book style.
i agree. i also think this is one of the few biopics that actually contacted the person’s family and got approval for it. i watched the documentary “the searcher” and the movie actually got a lot of things right. i’m also glad they chose not to include elvis in his later years. i think relegating a celebrity to their worst, most tragic moments is the worst part of some of these biopics.
@@crab2195 Unlike many things written (many hundreds here in my library) and said about Elvis, this movie left him with his dignity. I loved that. I loved Baz for doing that. I feel sure his daughter, Lisa, loved that. In fact she said it. People have been trying to destroy this wonderful humanitarian for all of his life, and 45 years since he has been gone. He so deserved that. Austin was spectacular, working 2 years to achieve a little of the essence that was Elvis and not, as some in here say, be a caricature, and for sure not an impersonator.
@@keetonplace i couldn’t agree more! people just LOVE to rewrite history and refuse to acknowledge the truth because then they’d have to admit that their claims against elvis aren’t actually true. it made me so happy that lisa, her children and many more generations to come will see this movie and get a taste of who elvis really was. and i so agree, austin did an amazing job. personally, i think he had the best performance out of all recent biopics; by far. i see what’s happening with this new marilyn movie and it breaks my heart. i wish all biopics celebrated the life and legacy of artists like this movie did. this movie didn’t make a mockery or a caricature of elvis, it only made me appreciate him more. idk if you heard about the new movie “Elvis & Me” based on priscilla’s book… they cast jacob elordi as elvis. i’m not sure where hollywood got the idea that every tall actor has the capability to play elvis so that’s already a red flag. i have a feeling that movie is going to try and paint elvis in a darker light, so i’ll probably skip that one. this movie exists without shoving a message down your throat, he wasn’t perfect, but he was human. and this movie showcased that perfectly!
Two things I actually loved about Elvis were this : 1) it made me understand the popularity of Elvis (which is why i did not mind the illusion of intimacy with a popular figure : i like that it felt larger than life) and 2) i liked the depiction of constructing a star, including the uppers and downers that were fed to celebrities of old hollywood. I think there is value in understanding how a figure becomes larger than life, and that was what I took from it
agree with both your points!
Yh, I never got the hype behind Elvis Presley until Austin butler appeared in the jumpsuits and I found myself squealing along. Camping everything up helped give that sense of something other that must have driven women crazy back then
We saw those in Judy, though just a couple years ago.
Exactly
Than go watch Jailhouse Rock. The idea that someone can basically alter history and create a false narrative about a real person is so harmful to the marginalized communities he stole from. Younger genertations are going to take the biopic seriously and not do any research after which quite literally alters history. I’m glad you got a cute musical ut of this but to other communities it was so much more than that, in the worst way possible. Its a biopic for godsake, its gotta be accurate.
What I liked about Rocketman was that the music from the artist was used to tell the story, push the narrative along. It wasn't used because 'Oh this is a famous song and we need it to play at this moment to replicate a change in time'.
Indeed, i was surprised that a biopic movie that could've been told in a generic traditional way was change into a musical fantasy that absolutely works and became a refresher from basically any biopic we've seen lately
It’s not really a biopic if the movie plays like a fantasy
My favourite sort-of biopic (it wasn't allowed to use names but was transparently about him) is Velvet Goldmine, and absolutely unflinching, sympathetic but honest portrayal of David Bowie. So damn good because it isn't concerned with kissing anyone's ass or making them look like heroes
I think a biopic can really only be done well in the format of a series or limited series. Placing one’s entire life into a couple of hours is impossible to do with true depth.
Counter argument: Moonlight
@@ruminationstation4200 counter argument: Moonlight is only semi-autobiography, most of the stuff in the movie was not truthful to the actual writers life. The movie only took influence from writers life as opposed to actually adapting it
Edit: example, the movie 8 Mile. No it isn’t a biopic despite the fact B-Rabbit is played by Eminem and his life is based off Eminem’s.
I think it can work as a movie if it keeps its focus really specific. I think Spencer and the social network really work for that.
@@wesstewart2677 Id argue loose adaptations that channel the spirit of the artist rather than reciting a synopsis of their life is a better approach to standalone biopics. You can tell a complete story through vignettes, you just need to limit your story to be narrower than "the majority of Elvis Presley's adult life". The format of Moonlight shows it can be done, but you need to have a concise area of focus and a precision in approaching it
@@ruminationstation4200 I agree. It seems to be a better approach to be honest. Like 8 mile, Purple Rain are great examples that come to mind. Don’t directly adapt their lives just capture the essence of what made them famous.
I know “What’s Love Got to Do With It” falls into a lot of these same biopic narrative trappings, but since it was from the early 90s when biopics weren’t as overdone, and focused more on Tina Turner’s career before her mega stardom of the 80’s (which a lot of mainstream America remembers her for), I do feel like it works. And ends up being very moving. Angela basset’s performance in particular always ends up haunting me
you are missin something vital. it was one of the few times a biopic or any film treated an abusive relationship, honestly. not sayin it was perfect but that was a huge part of its raw feel
It also did not sugarcoat the darker sides of the Tina Turner/Ike Turner relationship, did apportion decent amounts of time to the different sequences of the life of Tina Turner AND had an absolute killer of a leading couple with Basset and a criminally underrated Fishburne.
only thing that haunted me were Angela Basset's biceps -the real Tina could have kicked Ike's ass if she had those.
Tina is way better!
Fishburne was wylin in that movie
As a Dutch person it was so funny to see Tom Hanks say "Godverdomme!". The film is well acted but really fast paced. The best moment was the transition to the real Elvis at the end. Brought tears to my eyes
One of my favorite mind-bending history facts is that Wyatt Earp, of OK Corral fame, actually lived long enough to see himself portrayed in a dubiously historical film. He died in LA in 1929, about eight years after he was able to see himself portrayed (briefly) on screen in a movie called Wild Bill Hickock. He also served as a consultant for some of the very earliest Westerns. You have to wonder what he thought about these sensationalist biopics of people he personally knew, people who he had outlived.
All of my favorite Biopics could almost be a fictional movie and exist with out the real people. I think that's what separates them from the bad ones. Marie Antoinette from the movie does not act the real Marie Antoinette would and tells a story that cares more about girlhood and femininity more than it does about the real history. The Social Network is a legal drama about friendship, betrayal and ambition. None of the characters even have the same mannerisms as the real people. I think both of these stories are helped by the fact that they don't need to waste time on explaining a little details but both could still be good films if they existed in a universe without Facebook or Marie Antoinette.
Honestly I don’t think society was ready for 2006 Marie Antoinette, there is a lot there to be analyzed, and yes I agree, Sofia Coppola I think was exploring the “idea” of Marie Antoinette as this icon of femininity and wealth and almost a “standard”. Marie Antoinette has almost become an archetype of sorts, and that was what the film explored.
then y make it a biopic
@@alaya3322 see that’s what im wondering too
*Walk Hard, has ruined music biopics for me entirely* .. every time they get to the “Off the rails - drug fiend” part of the movie.. I always get flashbacks to,
“Get out of here, Dewey, you don’t want no part in this shit”
Came here to say this!!
Haha yes!! “It's not habit-forming!”
I think Rush is still one of the best biopics out there. It focuses on a stretch of time in Niki Lauda and James Hunt’s lives instead of their entire lives and it portrays them as people with flaws
I'm still mad it got snubbed 10 years after
@@falconeshield*10 years _later_
The movies that really kicked off the musical biopic craze again were The Buddy Holly Story and Coal Miner's Daughter; they were both huge when they came out. It was the first time in American cinema (at least in a major production) that actors from the method generation really tried their hand at channeling famous musicians, even doing their own vocals. Sweet Dreams and The Doors came later. There was also a 1976 biopic of Woody Guthrie, Bound for Glory, but even though it was nominated for best picture, it didn't have nearly the cultural footprint of TBHS and CMD.
Dewey Cox is the only musician whose biopic wasn't a waste of anyone's time. I still cry when I remember the phrase "the wrong kid died". Powerful stuff.
It wasted my time.
when he told Edith 'I can't build you a candy house, it will fall down, the sun will melt the candy', it was like a punch to the gut.
That film really cut to the core of the struggles Cox had to endure
@@DougWIngateThey overblew Edith‘s importance in the film. The real Edith Cox was a blink-and-you-miss-it-wife.
@@cybercop0083 agreed. Factually speaking, Cox never pointed to Edith in the audience. That old myth was dispeled decades ago.
@@DougWIngate All in the name of melodrama. tsk tsk.
Luhrmann's style is MUCH more suited to lower budgets imo. I think that's the biggest fault of this movie. Strictly Ballroom's smaller budget really let Luhrmann's earnestness and joy over the artistic merit of film shine without compromising the heart behind the movie. So while a lot of the fault of Elvis is its genre trappings, Luhrmann has shown before that he doesn't have trouble making fantastic genre films (the Hero's Journey for Strictly Ballroom, Orpheus and Eurydice for Moulin Rouge, Romeo and Juliet, etc). As he becomes less constrained by budget, I think the soul of his movies gets lost in the sheer enthusiasm for film as a visual medium. There's a huge difference in this even between Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge. I prefer the former because it has a lot of heart, and while Moulin Rouge moved me, it was clearly made for the spectacle of it all rather than the storytelling. The low-budget and camp of Strictly Ballroom lend themselves extremely well to Luhrmann's visual style, and ultimately improve the movie and give it a somewhat subversive charm by lending it humanity. I think the issue in this movie does partly lie in the fact that it's a biopic, but ultimately it's failings fall to Luhrmann's unevenness as a big-budget director.
love your videos! not trying to condescend at all, i'm just obsessed with strictly ballroom lmao
Well put : I love most Luhrmann's productions, but I feel that Australia would have benefited from a tighter budget and stronger input in screenwriting. It was too much of a tourism and (also JFC don't call your Asian character Sing Song, _Baz_ )
Yet my favourite production is The Get Down and you can see/hear every single penny they sunk in it 💸
ROCKETMAN... now that was a different style of biopic. I think it worked! I'm disappointed it wasn't mentioned here. I was the only one of my friends and fam who did not like Elvis, and I find the only biopics I actually enjoy are about the people I didn't know about beforehand - the Tammy Fay movie blew my mind and I got to call my mom afterward and ask her if she knew about her, which she did. It ended up being a lovely movie watching experience and conversation after.
Rocketman works because it tries different than any other biopics and it absolutely works. It's a mixed of biopic elements and musical fantasy which is a refresher from other traditional biopics we've seen that's told in an entertaining way. I was surprised that Elton's songs worked for the narrative. I liked Elvis but Rocketman is superior in every way
i'd love for you to make a video on the marilyn monroe "bio-pic". it is such a lesson in how to utterly fail at a message in film by contributing to the exact thing it's trying to call out, trying to distract you with fancy visuals
I think it needs to be acknowledged that biopics and even most documentaries should not be confused with journalism. They walk a fine and often problematic line of demystifying but also mythologizing people, events and places. In a way they're like consensual misinformation, and that's as dicey as it sounds when it comes to accuracy and consequence.
i tried tellin my mother that its 'based' off a true story not a true story. unfortunately she is too far gown mentally and cant help but believe the shit
I've noticed that a lot of biopics that have family and friends involved in the making of it are not too accurate. The Presley family was involved in this movie, Queen and Freddy's sister being involved in Bohemian Rhapsody, and Whitney Houston's family being involved in the upcoming Whitney movie.
i think the issue is not that we're demanding movies that offer accuracy, but that we want them to FEEL true. that they feel like we are watching real people going through real things, and not this biopic state of The Man, The Myth, The Legend.
you know what (going on a tangent here), that reminds me of that All Quiet on the Western Front video essay that discusses the famous quote that says that, because of the nature of movies, it's impossible for a movie to truly and completely be anti-war. that is, until it was possible with the latest All Quiet on the Western Front. i think that speaks to the very adaptable and creative nature of cinema and storytelling and that not only is it possible, but it should be what it strives for. both in making a completely anti-war film and a biopic that doesn't fall in the same traps of mythologizing. watching a show like succession, for example, you would never say they are glamourizing and mythologizing anything about the super rich (and that show is also loosely based on a real life family). so if you're a good writer and not afraid to go there (and not afraid to make decisions to serve story and character, instead of the real person), you can have a good movie that touches on the humanity, in the way that people can do with fiction. it will never not be "misinformation", but it will achieve exactly what it should, as a movie.
Documentaries can make the same mistake of mythologizing people as well. Though I love it, Fire of Love did just that with the Kraffts. The film is made up of their own footage of volcanoes with voice over narration from Miranda July. The voice over treats them as these heroes when they just did a job and were devoted to it and each other. That sells. All of these biopics and docs make these companies big money, their only motivation no matter how sincere the film makers are.
Loved the small musical history lesson! As a metal musician it’s really important to remember where our music came from and honor that. Mina Le also has a good breakdown on the biopic! If anyone enjoyed this video they should check hers out!
Mina Le Nation arise!
Metal is garbage
Agreed, loved Mina Le’s video.
One particularly irritating cliche of music bipoics is when the artist is about to play in some dive or in front of an initially disinterested audience ( Buddy Holly Story and Ray come to mind)and the artist begins to play , the audience turn round to the stage , start prodding each other as if to say "hey this is good" and the sound , having been previously given over lo fi glasses clinking and loud background noise, miraculously transforms into high quality music audio. Also most seem to be plagued with particularly heavy-handed exposition dialogue.
I remember a podcast host talking about this movie and saying “I can’t believe that they let Tom Hanks do that”
I like this Elvis movie and I'm a fan of Tom Hanks - but I cannot believe he agreed to do this film😂 I keep thinking maybe he thought we wouldn't recognize him under all the prosthetics lol.
The greatest biopic of all time is Walk Hard. Dewey Cox was the hero we truly deserved. We must never forget him.
He never once paid for drugs though
It’s an Elvis biopic…. And you don’t want nunna this shit!!!
guilty as charge.
FUCK mobility
FUCK Ancient Egypt
FUCK.......cats!
😐
I watched the premiere of this movie with a friend as soon as it came out and when it was finished she looked at me and said: "I feel like I just watched a propaganda film." That was the most memorable thing about this movie for me
It kinda was. The details of Elvis and his life are so much more complicated and the movie really breezed over some of the more integral parts. Like the courtship with Priscilla.... their love story in its raw truth wouldn't go over well in present times. Priscilla probably has a lot to do with that.
Propaganda as in only talking about the good parts of Elvis and also blatantly making stuff up? If so, I agree. They really made him out to be a Civil rights activist and such and he was not. He donated money to MLK's funeral but that's about it. :/
@@cheesyDELISH48 I was thinking about that too. When I read that the Presley family was heavily involved in the film being made then I came to that conclusion too.
@@xxwhispersxx2856 i don't know how involved they might of been, but Baz definitely wanted their blessing and their approval
Movie showed he was awesome and that makes it propaganda ok lol
I think the best musical "biopic" I´ve seen is "I´m Not There" from 2007, based on "the lives of Bob Dylan". It makes no pretense abut being based on his actual life but rather the mythology sorrounding him during different eras of his career and trying to illustrate what his music incapsulates rather than how it necessarily came to be. I wish more biopics could do it like that
Damn. That was a mic drop video if I've ever seen one. It puts the 9 nominations Elvis received into even stronger disparaging taste than it did before.
*than it did already.
It doesn't hang together particularly well as a film, but Elvis has some terrific moments in it. The whole Christmas Special sequence is an all timer, packed with memorably cheesy quotes like 'now bring in the kung-fu spectacular', 'this has nothing to do with Christmas - you'll be hearing from our lawyers!' and of course 'young man, you tell him, it's time for Here Comes Santa Clause'
Amen. The Christmas sequence was legendary.
Pretty sure this sequence is made legendary by the completely lackadaisical acting by Tom Hanks, who probably just gave up by this point.
The problem with biopic is that you can't make 2h or 3h film about someone's life without leaving a lot of key moments , so it feels more fair if we had tv shows that examine the lives of thier protagonists also I truly believe that biopics should more follow films like Spencer, like examining a key moment of life a character study to be more specific
The trouble is, the movies dont always have a 2.5 hr runtime, so theyre forced to shove an epic into less than 3 hours. I think you can capture the essence and tell a sort of ancillary story that appreciates and celebrates one’s achievements (see Love and Mercy, a movie about the Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson) and have a much better product than what this movie tries to accomplish.
@@giggityguns123 I love, love and mercy
They would have had more time if half the movie wasn't music montages. I get that they need some but it felt a bit ridiculous how little story and how many music montages there were
Idk why they don't just make a series based on these people instead. More time and room to explore key moments
Well who ever said a biopic was supposed to encompass an entire persons life. It's just supposed to give you an impression of what they were like, why they did what they did, what they did, how they became who they were etc. With someone like Elvis there's an infinite amount of things to learn cause he was an infinite kinda guy
Very interesting video! As someone who doesn't know anything about cinema, I can say that watching the Elvis movie felt like watching a really long series of trailers. I couldn't finish it.
To clear something up. The title of "King of Rock 'n' roll was coined by a reporter who bestowed the title on Elvis because of his Ticket sales and sold out venues. Not because he , or anyone else for that matter , saw Elvis as the best thing ever.
I just don't feel like I need to see any other music biopic. I watched "walk the line" in my teens and it seems nothing has changed since then. It's like you are watching the same movie over and over: The young artist struggling to get noticed, eventually finding success and then losing his way to drugs and vices before making a triumphant return.
Very true. But it's also interesting to see the little nuances that make each story different...the different parenting styles, and trends and friends and whatnot that led to the artist living the way they did...and maybe how and why they broke down in the manner they did. It can be instructive for younger people figuring things out in their own life.
I think Elvis worked for me because I wasn't exactly fimilair with Elvis himself. I knew a few songs but was never really interested in his legacy, which made the film so much more accessible for casual viewers. Biopics either go formulaic or completely arthouse to differentiate from each other. A great example would be Spencer, Control, Elephant and Last Days.
Elvis worked for you? That's wild man, I can just imagine him turning up to work in a sequinned rhinestone suit to put in an honest 9 to 5 😂
I'm a big Elvis fan since i was 12, i've seen pretty much almost all biopics and documentaries on him, and i've loved Butler as Elvis, but hated the movie's superficial look on Elvis life and his music, there's so much more to his life and career that could/should be covered.
@@fernandomaron87i agree. It feels like they made a commercial, packaged story. It felt fake and disingenuous. It’s too bad really
Movie producers are counting on you not knowing anything about the real life of the person they're portraying. Literally no one bothers to do any actual research, and people are naïve and believe that movies are actually accurate and factual when they're not. Talk to any living person who has had a movie made about them and they'll tell that many aspects of the story told were changed, because the truth wouldn't sell.
I grew up on Elvis's music, was alive when he was alive, met J.D. Sumner, one of his best friends and back up singer/member of The Stamps, and knew Elvis better than most people.
I didn't watch this Elvis movie because, I saw some of the "highlights" and knew he wasn't being portrayed in a way that actually honors his legacy.
My idea of a complete nightmare of a movie would be if Tim Burton and Baz ever joined together in a project with mega funding behind it.
Would we ever escape the theater alive?!
I would but you no
There is something about this movie that entrancing so many people, me included. I watched this movie three times in theaters and once on HBO Max. I have never done this with any other movie and so many people, I have seen, had the same reaction to this film. There is just something about it. It may be the exciting and somewhat jarring editing or the mystique of a man who was larger than life whom we all know from birth but we don’t really ~know~ or Austin Butler’s spectacular performance, but it’s just something.
Yes, this!
I had a great time with Elvis, I still prefer Rocketman when it comes to modern biopics, but yeah, I see your points.
Rocketman is a great movie.
Seconded, Rocketman is to date my favourite biopic, since while it covers the same clichés found in most true life stories, it tells them mostly true song, and in a more creative way.
Rocketman being a musical definitely helped it, I think. It was an absolute romp of an experience, if nothing else. I’ve always loved Elton John’s music (and Bernie Taupin’s excellent lyrics) but the film certainly revitalized my enjoyment of it.
Rocketman was much better. It helped that Elton John was less concerned about hiding his own flaws. It was hurt that it came out a year after Bohemian Rhapsody. I recently saw Elvis on a plane, the movie. Im 65 and remember his life and career. I only watched up to the ludicrous Christmas Special that somehow spurred his comeback. I wasnt in the mood for the over dramatic way they would show the downfall.
@@michaeladkins6 fair point on Elvis, and yes, sucks that Rocketman didn’t get much love from the Academy due to Bohemian being released earlier. Best Actor should have gone for the Elton performance than Mercury
Interestingly, a lot of your critiques of ‘Elvis’ are what I find to be the films strengths. To me, the film’s point never felt like it was trying to interrogate who Elvis was as a person, but more so use the legacy of Elvis as a means to satirize America’s relationship with myth-making and spectacle. For example, alongside the music biopic, the superhero film is the most dominant form of American spectacle and myth-making in our current age. I think Luhrmann was being very intentional (and humorous) in portraying Elvis’s childhood origins in the style of a superhero comic book, where his “superpower” is just Black culture. He goes even further by following up this scene with Elvis’s first performance, where his pelvic thrusting is literally framed as a superpower, causing the entire auditorium to fall into a chaotic frenzy. Here, Luhrmann is able to allude to the relationship between American Exceptionalism and Race in a manner that is both cinematic and evocative of the punk nature that Elvis represented in his time. To me, Luhrmann’s visual approach felt very Verhoeven in its ‘Trojan Horse’ type satire where, on the surface, it seems like shallow spectacle but, through its style (which I’d argue was meant to evoke the hyper-visual nature of a carnival attraction) actually alludes to quite cynical themes about American myth making.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that when the film was first announced, it was marketed as a film about The Colonel (Originally, the film wasn’t even supposed to be titled ‘Elvis’), and I think that a lot of the films thematic power hinges upon the fact that he’s narrating and, basically, functions as the films main character. Not only does this perspective allow the film to frame Elvis and, through the anachronistic use of artists such as Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and Doja Cat, the modern pop-music industry (which still heavily relies on Black culture) as just another form of the Carnival Geek, but it also frames the films central tension as one about Elvis the person fighting against the myth of himself. It added an underlying tragedy to the film that felt very subversive of the traditional hagiographical nature most music biopics tend to adopt. And (while I could be reaching with this point), when the film does begin to Whitewash certain elements of Elvis’s life (i.e., his relationship with Priscilla), the fact that the film is being told from the perspective of ‘The Mythmaker’ (The Colonel) makes it hard not to think that even that, in itself, is Luhrmann subtly critiquing the hagiographical nature of the modern music biopic, which usually tend to only show the desirable elements of the figures life as a means to not disrupt their real-life financial value.
Ultimately, I get why the films style doesn’t work for a lot of people, but I do think that it is one of the rare Hollywood films that was able to successfully blend thematic richness with cinematic storytelling in a manner that chooses visual provocation over didacticism. And surprisingly, given the fact that the film was made in accordance with his estate, Luhrmann's approach is a lot more critical of the Elvis myth than a lot of people are giving it credit for. I also think that it’s exemplary of what more music biopics should be, which is a cinematic interrogation of the subjects relationship with the broader culture that they influenced and which influenced them.
Apparently the film didn't go deeper on the subject of Priscilla because they needed her approval on her part of the story.
So I guess she didn't to look like anything less than a strong willed independent woman.
She didn't want*
Oddly enough, your whole first paragraph is the reason why I see "The Boys" as being the best satire of the current state of American culture, with a particular kudos towards its relationship with the superhero obsession and myth-making.
i definitely echo this sentiment. the movie felt more like an active criticism of the Colonel’s abuse and exploitation of Elvis. plus, there’s something to be said about how the Colonel consistently references the audience mentioning how “our love” of and with Elvis is what ultimately drove him to death
That seems fine as a film, but then Elvis doesn’t need to be the main character. The same movie could have worked with a fictional character. It’s not a bad movie so much as it’s a bad biopic
Best discussion of the mediocrity of the film Elvis. As thoroughly mediocre as Bohemian Rhapsody, though in quite different way.
I usually dislike biopics..... but something about Elvis always draws me back in. I personally loved it
How come?
I agree. For me, it's Austin Butler's charisma.
I kind want to see the world where Dewey Cox was a massive box-office success and everyone stopped doing musical biopic
He walked so hard!
The wrong kid died
This is so random but I wanted to say hi because I’ve seen you in the comments sections of RUclips videos for like 10 years at this point lol.
Fun movie but Elvis was sincere and more fun and so infinitely better
This! 1000x this!! Walk Hard is a near perfect takedown of all of these films. A seriously underrated movie. Also if you love the history of rock the original music for the movie is a great pastiche of all the genres of that era.
It’s hard to make interesting biopics when the people or estates behind the person being depicted make sure that they are depicted in the most boring, vanilla way.
We can't forget the visual spectacle that Luhrman offers us, the excellent sound editing, the mesmerizing montage. Un film de cinéma!
Amadeus not a biopic?
Weird: The Al Yancovic Story - the final boss of all Biopics, a great biopic in its own right but also does to the genre what his music does to the songs they're based on. Perfection.
amadeus is mostly fiction
@@thewkovacs316 most biopics are on a continuum between complete fiction and scholarly veracity.
I love that biopics push me to learn more about the individuals in them (& history). I hate how little reality is in them. And they usually reinforce an unwillingness to learn about our history.
Who cares about reality? What's reality ever done for me? Elvis feels true that's all that matters
@@leonconnelly5303 reality is allowing you to comment on youtube. But I understand how you feel bruh, I get tired of reality sometimes🥃.
I mean they’re literally biopics, they have scenarios, artistic and cinematographic choices, etc. So do documentaries. You’re never going to see ’the reality’ on the screen, unless the camera is following the person in question during their life every second of their every day without editing and cutting everything, and even then how the camera captures the light, what the operator decides to film, aspect ratio, the way sound is captured is going to be artificial. Cinema is an art, it isn’t there to retranscribe everything literally.
@@beafraid5467 your right, very much so. However, a movie, film, art (call it what you will) is almost always further away from what happened than a documentary. With docs you have watch more then one though. Take this latest round of violence btwn Hamas & Israel for instance. You need to know the past and the present, and watch multiple docs (and great films as well) to understand.
Elvis was different from others. this was not about Elvis life but the business aspect from his managers eyes. what I love about it was unlike Bohemian, Austin Butler authentically singing in the role. 👍😁
Love this and love the Todd Haynes shout out here. Thank you for your service as ever, Maia! Your videos are my favorite watch on my lunch breaks.
I only saw the first 15 minutes of this on HBO Max, but when I did, I was very glad I hadn't gone to see it in the theater. I don't get why we can't just have a normal biography of Elvis, as if his life was boring so that have to make everything sparkly and flamboyant.
That was more the choice of the director who does all his movies like that.
It’s interesting thinking about the different critiques biopics about men and women get… Often with biopics about men I’ve found the film itself is often brushed over while the performances are praised and there is rarely any talk about whether it was disrespectful or appropriate to make the film. However this feels like a massive part of the conversation surrounding biopics about women. Which in turn leads me to think about why people are so intrigued by women who have suffered, been sexualised, had issues with drugs etc. I’m not sure where I consider the line to be drawn on what is appropriate to explore, but there sure is a lot more controversy surrounding Blonde or Judy for instance than there was with Walk The Line or The Darkest Hour.
Didn't watch Blonde, but apparently the movie got too graphic on the non-consent acts (can't say the word on RUclips)
It's more about women being overly exploited, I think. Blonde was based on a book that fictionalized Marilyn's life and added more traumas... idk
@@anabotero9427 Tar was great though
Minor fact check @ 32:32: Elvis' single of Hound Dog sold 10 million records globally, not 200 million. To put that in perspective, Elvis' total certified sales of all his records combined are 231 million. The best selling single ever is Bing Crosby's White Christmas, at 50 million. Only 13 singles have ever sold 15 million or more.
The reality is they don't know any more about Elvis's life than we do, so the story will always be empty. This happens with nearly every biopic. Plus, real controversy is almost always avoided
" December 21, 1970, Presley engineered a meeting with President Richard Nixon at the White House, where he expressed his patriotism and explained how he believed he could reach out to the hippies to help combat the drug culture he and the president abhorred." and then he died of a drug overdose lol
wake up babe new broey deschanel vid dropped
The only music biopic I’ve enjoyed in the past 10 years is the Brian Wilson story “love and mercy”. Definitely worth your time
That and 24 Hour Party People are my favourites 😊
My favorite part was when he found the black church and the spirit of a funky soulful black man was sealed in him like the 9 tailed fox spirit....
You mentioned Todd Haynes, and I think his “bio-pic” of Bob Dylan is really well done. Especially for someone as shapeshifting as Dylan has been over his career. You’ve got like 5 or 6 different ppl playing Bob Dylan.
Walk Hard has slaughtered 95% of biopics for me. Even though it’s parody and skewers so many of them, it’s pristine with its music and writing and is the BEST one of them all.
i unironically listen to the ost it has great songs
Weird: The Al Yancovic Story pwns it
I don't think biopics are all bad. I think the only real issue with biopics right now is the oversaturation of biopics in Hollywood in the recent years. I feel like we've had so many biopic movies coming out in the recent years. We have one for Freddie Mercury, Marilyn Monroe, Elton John, Princess Diana, Aretha Franklin, Judy Garland, Ted Bundy, Whitney Houston, Elvis Presley, Serena Williams, Fred Rogers, Tanya Harding, Patrizia Reggiani, Elizabeth Holmes, Selena, Tommy Wiseau, and a few others I probably forgot about and can't mention.
If these movies were spread further out rather than bombarding us in the span of 5 ish years, rather than making space for more original stories, we probably wouldn't be so sick of them. It's like with live action reboots. They've always been around, but there were few and far in-between. Now, we all groan at the suggestion of a new film reboot by Disney.
I personally loved Elvis, watching it in the theater was an experience I'll never forget. Unlike others, I loved the fast paced editing, the transitions, the colors, THE CUSTOMES, Austin Butler was great, the sound was amazing. Of course is not perfect, I think his relationship with his mom should have been explored a lot more, Priscila's character was shallow, and in the end the movie is about Elvis the star, we dont see much of Elvis outside of his life on stage, for example, the years after he returned from germany until he comes back in 1968 for the special are skipped, 9 years skipped, but I suppose it's very hard to summarize 40 years of someone's life into 2 and a half hours, but at the same time, I think the movie was not trying to show anything but Elvis as the star and phenomenon that he was, you see that in everything starting from the Posters, which I love btw
I was recently watching Apollo 13. Being an enthusiast of the space program, I know the actual story very well and was once again reminded how well the movie tells the actual story in a way the audience can follow and really learn about this important moment in history. It reminded me of this video because it also fits the definition given here of a Biopic, but I think that's an example of a case where a biopic can actually be a very good form of both art and education.
Thank you so much for this material! I was waiting for somebody covering "Elvis" in a criticial, nuanced way.
As a black person from the diaspora, I always sort of roll my eyes when my wyte friends talk about Elvis. There will never be a platform maleable enough to talk about that stuff.
I guess The best biopics that has come out this year has to be - Tick Tick Boom and Spencer, because they are really well made and the former in m opinion has sparked an interest among people like me on the life and works of one of the most underrated and significant Playright and Musician of all time - Jonnathon Larson, he is an inspiration to a lot of young struggling artists...
You forgot to include clips from Walk Hard about Dewey Cox. It's probably the best biopic ever made.
The research and time you take on these videos is so inspiring to me. I get so excited when I see a new one pop up. Thank you for making these. Down with biopics lol
In defense of the Queen biopic you touched on: I guess it was Brian’s & Roger‘s choice to water down Freddie‘s portrayal as he was an immensely private person. They wanted to tell the story without revealing his secrets because he wouldn’t have wanted that. I guess that’s why film feels somewhat shallow
Also Dexter Fletcher the director said in an interview that his intentions with the film were to pay tribute to Queen and Freddie Mercury. He said he didn’t want to say anything awful about Freddie because he isn’t longer here with us defend himself.
I loved Bohemian Rhapsody and loved the more happy tone of it. I loved that the film at the end makes you feel like you just ended up watching the best rock concert ever. The film at the end leaves you euphoric in the Best way possible.
They knew if they showed Freddie's worst, they'd have to show their own. They basically made a movie where everything was his fault, and they had no responsibility.
I love how they just erased his bisexuality at the awards
If that was true, his personal life wouldn't have been spoken about at all. But it was basically the main focus of the movie.
@@falconeshield Absulutely nobody erased his bisexuality.
I feel like Elvis's story can't be put just into a movie, I feel like a short series would be able to capture the nuance of his life way better
Honestly I felt like The Great Gatsby succeeded in showing that behind all the parties and flappers and stuff, there's the ugly truth that the Tom Buchanans of the world will always keep dominating. Gatsby poured everything he had in search of his ideal, and he still failed. I think a lot of the sentences: "You see, we were born with it. _It's in our blood_ ."
totally agree! baz chooses narratives that he can portray as incredibly visually extravagant, i think it emphasises the detachment from humanity that Nick Carraway was witnessing, and also the public and the colonel’s perception of Elvis as a legend and an “act”, rather than a person
It's interesting that the specific themes you highlighted as examples of where the "Gatsby" film succeeds are 💯 F. Scott Fitzgerald's, literally the passages that were ripped almost verbatim from his novel. Luhrmann's contribution was the extravagance of the lifestyle, which was the most shallow aspect of this literary classic. That's why I felt that Gatsby is Luhrmann's weakest work, though tbf he was never the right director for this adaptation cause he'd obviously fall into the trappings of the gild to the expense of the gold in F Scott Fitzgerald's work.
Based on the themes you pointed out that resonated with you, I'd highly recommend you revisit the OG novel. Dedpite my issues with the movie, I do believe it serves as an excellent primer for the book.
Now, Luhrmann's issues with tackling Gatsby's are -ironically - what makes "Elvis" a triumph (and imo one of the highlights, if not *the* highlight of Luhrmann's work). Elvis Presley was gild (in more ways than one, the cultural appropriation discurse being an example of that) and high camp and extravagance and showmanship paired with undeniable talent. Choosing the colonel's POV (despite whatever tf Tom Hanks interpretation was) was genius for not having to delve to the seedier parts of Elvis's life, that was not the point of the story (a story that's been told to death frankly in miniseries and documentaries and TV movies...did we really need to see yet another montage or mention of Elvis dying on the toilet?). It was Elvis as a product, with glimpses of a real human being under there, which the colonel and his entourage were quick to stiffle until they ultimately suffocated their golden goose. I've been steering clear of biopics since the dumpster fire that was "Bohemian Rhapsody" (as a Queen and Freddie Mercury superfan, I'll never recover), but recently and reluctantly I gave "Elvis" a chance and it was definitely not in the same zipcode or planet as "Rhapsody". Austin Butler's performance's incredible, careful and respectful to the last moment, where it could be easy to turn Presley into the joke he was for many critics in the last stage of his career. This ain't a half-assed cosplay with Spirit Halloween dentures and some choreography. "Elvis" works and it'll age beautifully.
Hey Broey, big fan, your pieces are deep, so well researched edited, & performed; always funny & informative. For real. But I must offer a view of dissent (from a guy in his 50's full disclosure.) Film and Elvis Presley are driving passions for me, and I find Baz’s Elvis to be, though flawed, remarkable. Though few would associate the word restraint with Luhrmann, there is a discipline in its focus on the Col. Parker relationship. It’s a movie not so much on Elvis' personal life or artistic process, but his career trajectory. It’s a very risky choice that paid off largely because the adult demographic was intrigued with how it was set dramatically apart from other bios including the many Elvis TV movies (The best of those, Kurt Russell & John Carpenter directing, stays relevant with the personal focus. Baz fills gaps left even by many book bios, to explain how a great talent could be squandered so badly & often, through truly Machiavellian manipulation through a very American bent on greed and exploitation.)
In service of this, many key artistic & personal highlights are conspicuously absent or glossed over because they weren’t a source of friction with Parker. The affair with Ann-Margret for instance. More importantly, truly the most crucial figure in Elvis' artistic life, Sam Phillips of Sun Records, helping Elvis find his "voice," ideal side players, and putting him on the charts. His contribution is sarcastically tossed off with a scant few dismissive words from Parker, tinged with indifference to racism: “he was trying to save the world recording black artists…they didn’t sell.”
Parker also says, laughably, that Elvis was as good as Brando or Dean in Flaming Star (justifying mindless musicals with its failure,) an unreliable narrator & Philistine. (Have we seen this in any music bio's? The great Love and Mercy details REALLY toxic management abuse of Brian Wilson, but not from that point of view.) A better manager who cared about his client would have gotten Elvis some legit training like any good actor, and gotten him respectable films, willing to weather a few failures between successes, as happens with any movie star; but Parker could only accept guaranteed cash grabs with his own dehumanizing "art of the deal." Baz dazzlingly illustrates how Parker would rather see Elvis as a sideshow oddity than important artist, aggrandizing his promotional achievement as if no one could have taken Elvis farther or higher.
As Parker self mythologizes, he seems to think we’re here to see a movie about HIS greatness - his collapse shows a snow globe recalling Wells in Citizen Kane - a man who for all his flaws and gift for hype, also built great things. Like Kane it is incredibly stylized & Baroque (duh, it’s Baz.) It's bizarre and miles away from Dewey Cox - puh-leeze with those comparisons. Contrast with Walk the Line, the biggest Cox target, saved by two great leads from the directorial panache of an old Bonanza episode, and bad secondary casting as well; Sam Phillips, instead of a wiley Southern firebrand, is portrayed with the demeanor of a Midwestern grocery clerk. Jerry Lee Lewis is distractingly cast with a doppelganger for James Dean - wrong icon guys? The less said about Tyler Hilton as Elvis, the better.
Big risk number 3, Hanks’ underrated (by some) portrayal. Yes he chews scenery like a Disney villain. Parker, a charisma-free slob who wore a Hawaiian shirt to Elvis’ funeral, would need major interpretation to hold attention next to Elvis who is innately larger than life. Punching up his sporadic Dutch accent was a great choice and terrific fun. I’ll never again say “Here Comes Santa Claus” out loud without doing his accent. A Cinemascore (or some such) audience pole showed 40% of the adult audience were persuaded to go because of Hanks’ involvement, to a 93% satisfaction rating. The biggest hit since pre-Covid that wasn't a franchise sequel and/or superhero flick, and 2nd in the genre only to Bohemian Rhapsody (also with inferior direction.) This film resonates.
I agree the film is drastically over-edited. But it occured to me upon repeat viewings that it captures how Elvis might have felt as his success and manipulation took off like the proverbial rocket-ship mentioned in the also dizzying ferris wheel conversation. Significant is the interview clip saying "everything's happening so fast, I'm all mixed up." This is one of numerous shots btw that shows the real Elvis' face, just largely obscured. Those quick to spot the real thing might get the sense of schizophrenia - what version of himself is he now, real or playing a role? Does he even know? (I would also compare the tempo with the machine gun cutting of Scorsese's Casino, supporting the script's emphasis on constant paranoia, everyone always looking over both shoulders, in cameras, screens and mirrors, for anyone and everyone trying to rip you off at all times.)
However in the film's expedience, no doubt in part to shorten run time, there are some remarkable moments that grab the essence of things in a flash. Gladys' personality as captured in better books is nailed immediately as someone not just loving but feisty, sharp & opinionated. Other pic's have never depicted any more than a Southern cliche of the long-suffering matron. Elvis' absence didn't just leave her sad & depressed, it ground her guts in frustration to have her boy swept away amidst questionable motives where she couldn't advise and see to his well being. The actress does as much with her few moments as the one playing B.B. King who oozes good natured support on top the shrewdness necessary to survive showbiz.
Finally regarding his “complicated” legacy. The foil to the idea he appropriated the black musical culture (besides the fact you can’t steal from a culture you were raised amidst,) starts with one word: Rockabilly. The marriage of country to R&B was wildly unique and created a new vocabulary for artists that wouldn't be confused with as sounding black once the shock of Elvis' radical infusion was absorbed. Immediately after him, you hear in countless artists their take on Elvis that sounds nothing like his biggest black influences like Big Joe Turner, Clyde McPhatter, Wynonnie Harris, on and on. (Want to know about early 50's R&B?? Well-versed Elvis fans can tell you all about it. The PC hall monitors, not so much.) A true stylist is the rarest kind of artist and his not writing songs diminishes his accomplishment no more than Brando not writing his own scripts.
No strictly R&B / Gospell based artist, black OR white, could have exploded musical segregation as fast or furiously as Elvis, lacking his radical integration of Bluegrass, Western Swing, Dean Martin-esque pop, & white spiritual quartet styles (see: The Jourdinaires, whose backup singing, arranged to Elvis' supervision, is, like Elvis, neither straight R&B or Pop style, influenced by doo-wop black+white but contrasting major elements of the genre. This would be immediate imitated by white rockers (e.g. Ricky Nelson, Gene Vincent, etc.) and the Jourdinaires themselves were used constantly thereafter (starting with Patsy Cline) for every major COUNTRY artist (the white country appeal at its most potent) for the 60's and beyond; the most used music ensemble of any kind BY FAR in Nashville studio session history. To say nothing of guitarist Scotty Moore's Chet Atkins influenced country picking style, a legacy in the highest ranks of popular music axe-men. All of this appealed to white teenagers raised on the Grand Ol' Opry who secretly listened to "race radio" away from their parents, until Elvis invaded living rooms on live TV and changed everything. As Little Richard said “I thank God for Elvis Presley; he kicked down the door for all of us to follow.”
Countless towering talents in R&B & Soul attest passionately to Elvis’ talent, charisma and influence. Before we try to cancel Elvis (as if...) at the behest of a Twitter mob that mostly know little-to-nothing about the roots and history of early Rock ‘n’ Roll, how about we seek the opinion of the real Rock 'n' Roll, experts, Elvis’ black contemporaries & those to followed. Accolades are easily found from, well, James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Rufus Thomas, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker for God’s sake (it’s on video “this song is from the great Elvis Presley…) Jimi Hendrix, Fats Domino, Sam Cooke (according to his brother Dale,) Sammy Davis Jr, Al Green, B.B. King of course, Stevie Wonder my hepcats & kittens, and one of his bigger fans, Prince (check out his track Delerious, and live clips of Elvis covers.) On the truly contemporary scene, search here on RUclips or Google Image for Bruno Mars Elvis Impersonation and have your MIND BLOWN.
(His impact was louded even by Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver in Soul on Ice, a book that described him as a latter-day Johnny Alppleseed for afro-centric culture. On the Jewish intellectual front, Leonard Bernstein, very objective as a classical artist influenced by jazz but hardly Rock 'n' Roll, called him the greatest single cultural force of 20th Century.)
Baz's film takes Elvis' massive effect on culture for granted, as it should. It details not his artistic development, but how consumerist culture, greed, and ego can overtake art and drain culture and human beings of their soul and vitality, something explored far less music bio's, and never this heavily with a better subject. (Parker basically invented merchandising on the level that wouldn't bee seen again until the Beatles and still later Star Wars.) That's the Elvis story never properly told on screen, and Baz did a glorious take, if sometimes a glorious mess - which in some ways seems all the more appropriate for its subject. Respectfully submitted from a true fan. Sorry this was so long. Peace.
Wow, that was a brilliant read, thankyou so much.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I felt Baz shied away from nothing, yet neither did he overdwell, he had the perfect balance.
Baz had purpose and intent when he made this movie, to debunk many injustices and untruths that have been peddled around since his passing, and and I felt he failed on neither.
To me very much a watch, listen and learn movie, then be judge and juror.
Facts 💯
Plus I'm surprised that you're the only one who gives an argument against the cultural appropriation aspect.
Elvis was raised in black neighborhoods and surrounded by black people. So the music and the style was part of his culture. Just because he wasn't black himself didn't stop the other white people to treat him badly because of where he was from.
I learned and reflected on a lot of things from your comment, thanks for sharing! I'm sure Elvis had his fair share of failures and misunderstandings, but it makes me sad to see his legacy reduced to "cultural apropriation" :(
I think all Biopics should be miniseries instead of Feature Films. Because nearly all the problems that arise from them is because the writers are trying to condense someone’s life story into a 2+ hour film, and knowing what to keep and what to leave out, is extremely difficult. And that’s where some of these films completely fall by the wayside. At least with an 8-10 episode stretch, the screenwriters have more breathing space to explore what made this person so culturally important and how they went about it, in addition to the tensions between their personal lives and their public personas.
Im always shocked when i hear a new biopic is coming out, ive never even seen one as far as i remember, nor do i know anybody who has watched one (or at least mentioned they were going to watch one)
I adore this movie and it is probably one of the only movies where I fully let the plot and the depth (or the lack there of) slide. It is honestly such a joy to watch for me over and over again for its cinematics and the performance, it’s just dazzlingly fun and has so much life. Of course Elvis was not as ‘good’ of a man as he was painted to be, the movie also didn’t touch on his creative process as an artist, but I was quite surprised how many people went into this movie expecting it to be a documentary. I love the flashiness, the glamour, the over the top editing, the soundtrack . Everything that makes this movie a Baz Luhrmann movie. It felt unique and special and I really haven’t felt this way about a movie in a long time.
I think people are disappointed that Elvis wasn't portrayed as a person with many facets. He wasn't necessarily "good" or "bad" ... he was human.
I liked the movie for all the things you are saying. It was fun, until everyone was crying. Elvis was one of the best people I have ever researched in my life. He was not perfect, but deep inside, he was always well meaning. He was a good man, who constantly gave to those less fortunate. He never turned down a picture/autograph with a fan, a handshake with a guy, or from photographers wanting pictures. He was so nothing like the "stars" of today. That makes me happy. Those who choose to delight in writing critical things about him have their own demons to deal with. And...I find that they really don't know much about him. Have read the wrong books and it makes them think they know it all.
For real, so many people criticize biopics by using arguments that are basically "it's not a real documentary". Of course it's not, it's romanticized. It's basically historical fiction. Go watch a documentary instead
@@VixxKong2 this is the correct comment. Elvis was more of a romanticized celebration of his music and life; there is so much material out there on him, that go in so much more details of all aspects of his life, so many people cashed in on their Elvis stories.
To be fair there isn't much of a creative process to show, he didn't write his own music.
My best friend and I firmly believe that Todd Haynes should be the only director who's allowed to do biopics. Only slight hyperbole.
I literally JUST texted someone that a minute ago!
Only because Ken Russell died
I also think Pablo Larrain should be part of the “only allowed to do biopics” list (short list ik) like srsly Jackie is so underrated and Spencer is a near masterpiece. Ppl aren’t talking about him when it comes to biopics and its honestly sad.
@@fangirlonfire don't forget Martin Scorsese. I mean yeah he's one of the greatest directors of all time and he made a couple biopics like The Aviator and The Wolf of Wall Street that were both excellent movies
I'm Not There is so good
For the record, Elvis was friends with James Brown, Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali and Jackie Wilson.
This film could be amazing if they only focus on one aspect/event of his life like Spencer did with Lady Diana. It could be about Elvis' residency in Las Vegas, him feeling trapped and exploit, physically and mentally. Basically the last 1/4 of the film, but develop it even further.
My favorite type of biopic "the difficult man making even more difficult decisions" is about to thrive next year: Ferrari, Oppenheimer and Napoleon. Film bro twitter is about to explode in 2023.
On a more serious note: Michael Mann is an expert on making biopics, The Insider and Ali (the director's cut) are some of the best you can find.
i saw elvis 2022 in theaters 3 times and it was possibly the greatest film experience i’ve ever had. maybe i just went in with different expectations because i was 100% interested in spectacle not in intimacy. to me it’s baz’s best work yet. it awoke a passion for elvis in me that’d been dormant for years. idk i didn’t get any of the criticisms about the film quality and not the historical context
I agree! I went in with no expectations except knowing that it was going to be visually stunning because its baz, and I came out happy. I promptly binge-watched a crap-ton of real Elvis performances because I needed more of the real thing. I thought this film was fantastic as a spectacle.
Broey, Thanks for this video. I have played music for near 50 years. I have watched countless films about musicians. None of them, not one, has ever come close to what music is or the experiences of actual musicians. Full stop.
Biopics are always interesting to me, it feels as though they want the public to remember their legacy more without being able to show how human they are. The amount of ppl who look pass what Elvis did to Priscilla is astounding to me. I want to see the good, the bad, and the ugly so we can understand what made that human a human but also a genius in their respective work. The glamour isn't always glamour and that goes for all biopics that I've seen.
Thank you, I learned things! I appreciate the care you take in your videos to say things precisely and avoid distortion too
I generally dislike biopics with passion, for the exact reasons you mention, I simply get bored by the formula and the need to fit a real person into preexisting boxes, to tell a story, but there are some exceptions that I appreciate a lot.
Both of my absolute faves, I'm Not There, and Rocketman are actually highly stylized so I wonder what you think about them. I find that through that stylization both achieve something other than mare imitation of real life, and definitely work much better as a character study.
And also Ray
*says that BB king should have responded negatively in the scene where he and Elvis talk about covering songs... *Immediately states how BB king defended Elvis to the end of his life
And ignores the song, "In the ghetto," which while not a great song was the first song I remember hearing in which a white person addresses the suffering of black people.
It's true that he wasn't an activist, aside from Harry Belafonte, who was? But he really was complicated.
I like Elvis (both the movie and the guy) and I think the movie is good, not great but wouldn’t go as far as mediocre. However I’d love to see more biopics like rocketman that are truly unique in their approach to the person or group they’re depicting and that can truly bring new perspectives to these larger than life legacies