Baz Luhrmann
Elvis

To the already vast series of biopic films now adds "Elvis" by Baz Luhrmann, presented at the latest Cannes Film Festival and released in Italy last June 22. And since biopic films, lately enjoying a certain commercial success, have the flaw of presenting the protagonists — the musicians — in a somewhat fictionalized and not entirely accurate way (see Freddy Mercury, Elton John), I found that unfortunately, it did not go better for the king of rock'n'roll either.

Director Luhrmann, the author of other interesting films like "Moulin Rouge", offers us the rise, success, and decline of the legendary Elvis (notably portrayed by Austin Butler) in a dazzling and flamboyant way from the perspective of his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Therefore, it would have been more fitting to title it "Elvis According to Colonel Tom Parker," but this doesn't change the fact that Presley's human and professional life appears somewhat superficial, glossy. For instance, merely highlighting the protagonist's musical education according to the dictates of African American rhythm and blues music is not accurate because Elvis also listened to and performed country music, another foundational component of rock style. Obviously, a performer like him, in the puritanical and racist USA of the 50s, represented not only a novelty but also a disruptive element, with his provocative hip-shaking. And Parker's attempt to clean up Elvis's image was such that it distorted him both as a singer (from rocker to melodic pop crooner) and as an actor in insipid and banal films (despite certain acting potential of the boy, as in a film to reconsider like "Jailhouse Rock"). And so, Elvis's attempts to regain dominance on the rock scene were not entirely effective (here the director glosses over a bit on the emergence of new musical myths like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, who surpassed the so-called king of rock 'n' roll). Presley's decay will be characterized by a long series of concerts in America (especially in Las Vegas) where he, increasingly bloated and amphetamine-fueled, will reintroduce his old hits accompanied by lavish and overblown bands. Until his death on August 16, 1977.

In short, as Luhrmann's film is conducted, one only gets to see Elvis superficially, and many aspects of him are omitted or not adequately addressed. Just to say, the character, due to his introverted nature, hid a twisted psychology, possibly due to surviving his twin brother who died shortly after birth. There was also a morbid affection for his mother and a tendency to engage in sexual relationships with various women encountered in his intense life. And there were ambiguous attitudes from Elvis towards African Americans (he was, after all, born in 1935) and other rock musicians (Beatles and others, whom he saw as bearers of subversive music and philosophy, so much so as to explicitly ask then-American President Nixon to curb this danger). Quite strange from him if you consider that he met the Beatles at his villa in Graceland in 1965, and they played some songs together (who knows what happened to the tapes of that jam session...).

He was certainly a man full of contradictions, but the great vocal quality of his performances remains undisputed, as you can see in the film's final part where images of his last concert roll as he masterfully, albeit exhausted, performs the song "Unchained Melody." Simply unforgettable.

Of course, one might then wonder what would have happened to Elvis Presley if he hadn't been duped and vampirized by that so-called Colonel Tom Parker, an authentic carnival barker who was nothing more than a mysterious Dutch emigrant who had hastily left his homeland to make a fortune in America and pose as a phantom officer. Here, Tom Hanks's portrayal is perfect in conferring Luciferian and unsettling traits to Parker, and this is enough to support the entire film.

For the rest, considering how Elvis's life unfolded, one might wonder how it would have gone if, instead, the boy, without descending into certain sacrilegious and nihilistic excesses like the Sex Pistols, had not left the record company Sun Records in the mid-50s to sign a contract (more advantageous for Parker than for him) with RCA. Maybe his rock style would have remained more genuine and raw? And perhaps the whole history of the rock genre would have taken a different turn? Maybe it would have been a whole other story...