I lived the 50's and this movie was pretty accurate. The persecution of Elvis by churches, teachers and politicians was crazy. It was so segregated, white stations would not play black artist until Elvis changed that. He was an advocate for Black singers and even helped James Brown and Jackie Wilson start their careers. If you want a true look at the man, watch "Elvis Presley and the Black Community" on you tube. They did not show his humanitarian and generous side. He helped build St. Judes hospital in Memphis and the Pearl Harbor Memorial. There are so many layers but everyone should check out his tribute to MLK, " If I Can Dream". Thanks
By far my favorite movie of all time. Austin Butler deserves an oscar. His portrayal of Elvis is spectacular! I loved the Baz Lurman scenario. But most people do not.
I have to address a few things regarding the discrepancies. You have to remember that this is a movie, not a book nor a documentary, therefore it is constrained by both time and narrative purposes to grab the audience. You yourself have stated that 2.39 hours is 40mins too long. This film takes a number of real events and condenses them all into 1. The Russwod Park concert for example were 4 different concerts combined into 1. The Florida riot, the Lousiville wiggle ban, the Nipper scene, and Russwood Park concerts were all combined into 1. Now given the story at that point and the focal pressures all on Elvis' young shoulders, it makes sense that Baz chose Trouble for the song, to heighten the emotions, the message, and punk attitude Elvis felt in those early concerts. Fyi, Elvis did not sing Trouble in those concerts as it was from his film prior to going to the army. The Lousiville particularly had the police captain warning elvis not to move even a finger because of his reputation of causing riots like the Florida one. He even wrote to the fbi for advice. The fbi had a file on Elvis since the 50s btw, because they were concerned about his bad influence on impressionable minds and all the riots he caused in his concerts. This is not disputed, these are facts. Now let's address your 2nd concern. The rant against Parker specifically on stage never occurred. But like Russwood concert, this was taken from 2-3 other concerts and combined into 1 with 1 switch. The rant against Barron Hilton on stage was switched to a rant against the Colonel instead. Why? Well think about it. Prior to this Elvis would sometimes do or say things to provoke the Colonel on stage to antagonize him. Why? Because he was sick and tired of Las Vegas by 1972, in fact he loathed Las Vegas. And Elvis knew of all the debts the Colonel had and Elvis had to continue paying for, he mentioned it to many people. After the rant against Barron for firing an employee with a dying wife, Elvis and the Colonel had a showdown and that's when the firing occurred. All these events were combined for tension and time purposes, films need a focus. You can't have multiple little events here and there and expect the audience to get the buildup of the scene, look how poorly the Jonathan Rhys Meyers film handled that, very very poorly I might add. The concerts were not tamer in reality bec he did in fact caused riots and in actuality, the film tames some of his performances like the Nipper dog mascot scene. There was a concert where Elvis literally dry humped Nipper on stage and when the police heard of it, they came in the next night to catch him in the act and imprison him for lewd conduct. Of course Elvis knew they were there and tamed his act at that time. A lot of those around Elvis did not care for the movie because they were either not portrayed (or not portrayed enough) or because they do not understand how films work. You cannot detail every single moment in separate instances because you simply do not have time to do that. You have to weigh in what matters most, telling the narrative as spiritually accurate as possible or a day by day factual retelling that leaves out the essence of the time period, characters, and events of the time? I choose the former, the generic biopics chose the latter. Ps. I bet I can address many of the inaccuracies many complain about. Fyi, in Ray Connolly's book he argues that Elvis in fact knew in 1977 that the Colonel was illegal and a Dutch immigrant because of an article on a fan magazine he was reading and he may have actually have had his suspicions as far back as the early 70s. Whether this is true or we will never know, you cannot deny that Baz did his homework. He worked on this film for 9years.
I feel the same way about talking about Parkers voice as I do about the makeup, Tom Hanks without the accent or the makeup would be laughable. Tom Hanks as a villain and Parker was much worse than the movie protrays him. Due to the fact that Parker has already spent 30 years trying to hide who we was I can imagine he would have used a lot of accents or maybe he was finally get a better take on a USA accent. The idea he was Dutch and trying to sound West Virginian is a trip. He was a conman and would probably use any accent he needed. Most of the recordings of his voice are much later in his life.
Also people around that time did notice and state he had an accent and couldn't even say Presley, instead he said Pwezley. They even heard him say some foreign words they thought was German but was in fact Dutch when the Colonel was angry or frustrated. But they ignored it. Or dismissed it.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
I lived the 50's and this movie was pretty accurate. The persecution of Elvis by churches, teachers and politicians was crazy. It was so segregated, white stations would not play black artist until Elvis changed that. He was an advocate for Black singers and even helped James Brown and Jackie Wilson start their careers. If you want a true look at the man, watch "Elvis Presley and the Black Community" on you tube. They did not show his humanitarian and generous side. He helped build St. Judes hospital in Memphis and the Pearl Harbor Memorial. There are so many layers but everyone should check out his tribute to MLK, " If I Can Dream". Thanks
By far my favorite movie of all time. Austin Butler deserves an oscar. His portrayal of Elvis is spectacular! I loved the Baz Lurman scenario. But most people do not.
I have to address a few things regarding the discrepancies. You have to remember that this is a movie, not a book nor a documentary, therefore it is constrained by both time and narrative purposes to grab the audience. You yourself have stated that 2.39 hours is 40mins too long. This film takes a number of real events and condenses them all into 1.
The Russwod Park concert for example were 4 different concerts combined into 1. The Florida riot, the Lousiville wiggle ban, the Nipper scene, and Russwood Park concerts were all combined into 1. Now given the story at that point and the focal pressures all on Elvis' young shoulders, it makes sense that Baz chose Trouble for the song, to heighten the emotions, the message, and punk attitude Elvis felt in those early concerts. Fyi, Elvis did not sing Trouble in those concerts as it was from his film prior to going to the army. The Lousiville particularly had the police captain warning elvis not to move even a finger because of his reputation of causing riots like the Florida one. He even wrote to the fbi for advice. The fbi had a file on Elvis since the 50s btw, because they were concerned about his bad influence on impressionable minds and all the riots he caused in his concerts. This is not disputed, these are facts.
Now let's address your 2nd concern. The rant against Parker specifically on stage never occurred. But like Russwood concert, this was taken from 2-3 other concerts and combined into 1 with 1 switch. The rant against Barron Hilton on stage was switched to a rant against the Colonel instead. Why? Well think about it. Prior to this Elvis would sometimes do or say things to provoke the Colonel on stage to antagonize him. Why? Because he was sick and tired of Las Vegas by 1972, in fact he loathed Las Vegas. And Elvis knew of all the debts the Colonel had and Elvis had to continue paying for, he mentioned it to many people. After the rant against Barron for firing an employee with a dying wife, Elvis and the Colonel had a showdown and that's when the firing occurred. All these events were combined for tension and time purposes, films need a focus. You can't have multiple little events here and there and expect the audience to get the buildup of the scene, look how poorly the Jonathan Rhys Meyers film handled that, very very poorly I might add.
The concerts were not tamer in reality bec he did in fact caused riots and in actuality, the film tames some of his performances like the Nipper dog mascot scene. There was a concert where Elvis literally dry humped Nipper on stage and when the police heard of it, they came in the next night to catch him in the act and imprison him for lewd conduct. Of course Elvis knew they were there and tamed his act at that time.
A lot of those around Elvis did not care for the movie because they were either not portrayed (or not portrayed enough) or because they do not understand how films work. You cannot detail every single moment in separate instances because you simply do not have time to do that. You have to weigh in what matters most, telling the narrative as spiritually accurate as possible or a day by day factual retelling that leaves out the essence of the time period, characters, and events of the time? I choose the former, the generic biopics chose the latter.
Ps. I bet I can address many of the inaccuracies many complain about.
Fyi, in Ray Connolly's book he argues that Elvis in fact knew in 1977 that the Colonel was illegal and a Dutch immigrant because of an article on a fan magazine he was reading and he may have actually have had his suspicions as far back as the early 70s. Whether this is true or we will never know, you cannot deny that Baz did his homework. He worked on this film for 9years.
He did fire Parker but as you pointed out not on stage. Parker did give him a bill for all the money he was owed.
I feel the same way about talking about Parkers voice as I do about the makeup, Tom Hanks without the accent or the makeup would be laughable. Tom Hanks as a villain and Parker was much worse than the movie protrays him. Due to the fact that Parker has already spent 30 years trying to hide who we was I can imagine he would have used a lot of accents or maybe he was finally get a better take on a USA accent. The idea he was Dutch and trying to sound West Virginian is a trip. He was a conman and would probably use any accent he needed. Most of the recordings of his voice are much later in his life.
Also people around that time did notice and state he had an accent and couldn't even say Presley, instead he said Pwezley. They even heard him say some foreign words they thought was German but was in fact Dutch when the Colonel was angry or frustrated. But they ignored it. Or dismissed it.