Do you think Elvis was a good actor?

[Donut]

I know most of his movies were pretty bad and silly but considering how bad they were I think he did quite well in almost all of them. I find him really funy in some scenes and I think giving him the chance he could have done really well as an actor. In my opinion he didn´t have the right manager for his career, Elvis was too good and great for Parker, and that played a big part on Elvis´ personal downfall.

Here is an article about one of his lost oportunities.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20071227/REPORTER/712270334/1374

[KPM]

I thought when he had the right direction and good scripts (which was not often) he showed he could act. Many in Hollywood also thought he had natural acting talent. In "Love Me Tender" I thought he did very well for a "first effort" without any prior experience-not even a school play. He was offered many good movies over the years, so someone in Hollywood felt he could handle harder acting jobs-its a shame they were all turned down.

[Diane]

I agree with the author of this article. Had Colonel given him a chance, Elvis could have developed into a very good actor.

Diane

[Tony Trout]

Parker, IMO, ruined what could have been a brilliant film career for Elvis by putting him in those silly "travelogues" of films in the 1960s....

[utmom2008]

Parker, IMO, ruined what could have been a brilliant film career for Elvis by putting him in those silly "travelogues" of films in the 1960s....
I think it's interesting in the EOT outtakes to hear Elvis himself speak about how he would become physically ill over those silly movies. What a shame that he felt trapped, like there was no other way out but to do them and get them over with. (n)

[elvisia]

I think Elvis did pretty well in most of his movies.....especially in the more serious ones.....King creole, Jailhouse rock, Loving you...and even Love me tender. One of my favorites is Follow that dream, in wich I think he did a great job and also in Wild in the country he did very well....just to name a few

[SweetCaroline]

I agree with the author of this article. Had Colonel given him a chance, Elvis could have developed into a very good actor.

Diane

I agree with you, Diane.
I think most fans feel Elvis showed real potential at times in his acting career.
Unfortunately for Elvis and for us... that potential was just never given a really good chance to bloom. :(

[Getlo]

He was good in things like Wild In The Country, Jailhouse Rock and so forth. He was very good in King Creole. Most of the rest of the films aren't even relevant to the question.

He had a natural talent, but for him to have become a great actor, that talent still needed to be honed properly.

There are certainly glimpses of what he could have become in King Creole.

He was never great as an actor.

But he should have been. Such potential lost, for a variety of reasons.

[Diane]

Absolutely agree with you again Getlo. :)

Diane

[rickb]

Just watch King Creole again. There is enough proof there to say that Elvis was indeed a gtood actor. Sadly he rarely had the opportunity to prove that. His potential was lost thanks to the Colonel's short-sighted chice of money-makers over quality
Rick

[cameron]

:hmm: I thought he was good in King Creole . I loved the movie A Star is Born and thought Elvis could have done a much better job than Kristofferson; even though I always liked Kris.
Hey, I liked Charro too even though some thought I was crazy .
I enjoyed seeing him without the singing.

[Joe Car]

He was good in things like Wild In The Country, Jailhouse Rock and so forth. He was very good in King Creole. Most of the rest of the films aren't even relevant to the question.

He had a natural talent, but for him to have become a great actor, that talent still needed to be honed properly.

There are certainly glimpses of what he could have become in King Creole.

He was never great as an actor.

But he should have been. Such potential lost, for a variety of reasons.

Very good and fair post Getlo! What's a shame is that he loved acting and wanted to become an accomplished actor.

[Diane]

I liked Charro quite a lot too. Really sexy and cool looking in that beard which I never thought I could picture as him looking good with one. The acting wasn't half bad either.:)

Diane

[Lonniebealestreet]

I agree, Diane. In fact I would say that in his last four movies, though the scripts were pretty weak, there was a confidence and natural quality that he did not possess in earlier films.

King Creole is definitely my favorite though, speaking of quality productions that showcased the raw talent as well as anything else.

[Joe Car]

I liked Charro quite a lot too. Really sexy and cool looking in that beard which I never thought I could picture as him looking good with one. The acting wasn't half bad either.:)

Diane

Oh no, Charro don't go, Charro don't gooooooo! I love this movie Diane!

[utmom2008]

I liked Charro quite a lot too. Really sexy and cool looking in that beard which I never thought I could picture as him looking good with one. The acting wasn't half bad either.:)

Diane
I agree Diane!! (y) And I don't usually go for the unshaven look, but I must admit....Elvis was HOT!! :D:D I had to throw that in for the ladies...:lol:

[presley31]

I think elvis would of been a great actor if he was given the chance. I agree diane, elvis looked so sexy there.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l163/magentalou/elvispics/Elvis%20Cowboy/SexyRoughElvis.jpg

[KPM]

He was good in things like Wild In The Country, Jailhouse Rock and so forth. He was very good in King Creole. Most of the rest of the films aren't even relevant to the question.

He had a natural talent, but for him to have become a great actor, that talent still needed to be honed properly.

There are certainly glimpses of what he could have become in King Creole.

He was never great as an actor.

But he should have been. Such potential lost, for a variety of reasons.

I think in "Jailhouse Rock", "King Creole", and "Flaming Star" he was great for an actor who never had a lesson, never been in a play. In the hospital scene in "King Creole" where he finds out his father has pulled thru the operation-he is excellent. My daughters have a rule when they judge actors-if they can cry convincingly with tears-they feel they are a good actor. When I finally got them to watch "King Creole" that scene in the hospital gave him credibility with them as an actor. (I do not mean to hint that my daughters are great acting critics :D)
In "Jailhouse Rock" he is the quintessential "pampered tough guy rock star"
IMO It is one of the truely great rock films of all time and its because of Elvis's preformance.
"Flaming Star" he gives a fine performance of what its like to be caught in the middle of prejudice on all sides. They had wanted Marlon Brando for this role. They had wanted James Dean for the film which became "King Creole"
I think someone thought he had ability when he ends up in roles meant for this two great actors.

[ForeverTheKing]

No doubt Elvis was an incredible actor, if we think he never studied how to act :clap:

He was only unlucky...Parker and Hollywood weren't interested in Elvis as a actor but as a singer..of course because of money :angry:

He left us many many good movies...."Jalihouse Rock", "King Creole", "Viva Las Vegas", "Wild In The Country" and others. He was so natural on screen...that was TALENT (y)

[Albert]

Elvisfans really want to believe Elvis could have been or was a good actor.

I believe he wasn't and never would have been. I've seen many of those silly, light, musical movies from the 50's and 60s, and in those movies were many actors who did a better job than Elvis. Even in those kind of movies.

Good Elvis movies where Elvis played (for his abilities) very well, weren't that good compared to other (good) movies from that same time.

Elvis had lots of freetime during the shooting of movies. Sometimes he was months off. During that time he could have hired an acting teacher, but he didn't. He could have forced Parker to come up with better movies, if he really, really wanted. But obviously he didn't.

There are also tons of stories behind the "a Star Is Born" movies where Elvis asked Parker to come up with an excuse not to do the movie.

[marijaep]

I've always thought that Elvis had a natural talent, but he never used the maximum of it :'(
Too bad, he had lots of potential...
I like the 50s movies and I think the best one is King Creole, I loved the way he acted in that one :D
Change Of Habit and Charro(hotness!!! :blush:) weren't bad either! :D

[Hound dog]

I mean he was a good actor.I know that his film´s was preety bad, but he don´t
have a right role for him.Everyone was bad roles, That film has very bad action.But If he get a better or different role he can act it very well I mean.





IF I CAN DREAM OF A BETTER......

[SleepyJack]

I would have been very surprised if Elvis had returned to movies any time after 1969,I think his experiences with the whole thing killed it for him.He had his heart set on acting in the early days,and I think it meant a lot to him.Much of the blame has to lie with the Colonel,and his business-obsessed approach to everything,although some of it has to go to Elvis as well,he should have said something.I honestly think that if he had taken it slowly and been introduced to acting bit by bit he could have been a very good actor.....unfortunately it didn`t go that way.I think it hurt him a lot at the way it all worked out.

[Donut]

I know all the blame can´t be put on Parker but I think he worked hard since day one on taking advantage of Elvis´ insecurities and playing with them.

[KPM]

Elvisfans really want to believe Elvis could have been or was a good actor.

I believe he wasn't and never would have been. I've seen many of those silly, light, musical movies from the 50's and 60s, and in those movies were many actors who did a better job than Elvis. Even in those kind of movies.

Good Elvis movies where Elvis played (for his abilities) very well, weren't that good compared to other (good) movies from that same time.

Elvis had lots of freetime during the shooting of movies. Sometimes he was months off. During that time he could have hired an acting teacher, but he didn't. He could have forced Parker to come up with better movies, if he really, really wanted. But obviously he didn't.

There are also tons of stories behind the "a Star Is Born" movies where Elvis asked Parker to come up with an excuse not to do the movie.
And there are others who say he wanted to do it and Parker was the one who put up the road blocks so its another of the who do you believe. I also disagree with your assessment of Elvis's potential-as I have pointed out he was offered many roles which were serious movies-so it seems obvious Producers thought he could handle the roles. Many Hollywood people have said they thought he had acting talent, Kurt Russell, Martin Sheen, Walter Matthau come to mind as people who have said Elvis could act.
I agree Elvis should have studied acting-but he said many times he learned best -By doing. Many people are like that.

[Burning_Love]

In all honesty, yes. Just the rubbish scripts didn't do him justice.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Yes and No, he could act and I believe he was good given a script that challenged him and he challenged himself.... Couple of things here that will get the temperatures going here:-

Elvis didn't usually challenge the status quo, so nothing changed.

Elvis hid behind the Colonels skirt on many occasions when it suited his purposes.

Elvis liked the money the films generated.

IMO Elvis was passive aggressive, he could have and should have challenged the Colonel for better scripts and recorded albums separately.

[cameron]

Yes and No, he could act and I believe he was good given a script that challenged him and he challenged himself.... Couple of things here that will get the temperatures going here:-


Elvis didn't usually challenge the status quo, so nothing changed.

Elvis hid behind the Colonels skirt on many occasions when it suited his purposes.

Elvis liked the money the films generated.

IMO Elvis was passive aggressive, he could have and should have challenged the Colonel for better scripts and recorded albums separately.

Firstly, I have to ask what you mean by "getting the temperatures going."?

Next I have to remind us all that Elvis did try to fire Parker several times. Does anyone remember what happened?If not, read Careless Love again.

His life "is what it is." If we don't approve ; I wonder why we're here?

IMO; Elvis could have been a good actor if he had been given any encouragement to do what he wanted instead of focusing on how much money could be made off of him...or how many he had to support.
It's why I liked Charro so much I think. The emphasis was taken off the singing and onto the acting. I saw another side to him instead of some of the movies he'd made before.

[cameron]

And there are others who say he wanted to do it and Parker was the one who put up the road blocks so its another of the who do you believe. I also disagree with your assessment of Elvis's potential-as I have pointed out he was offered many roles which were serious movies-so it seems obvious Producers thought he could handle the roles. Many Hollywood people have said they thought he had acting talent, Kurt Russell, Martin Sheen, Walter Matthau come to mind as people who have said Elvis could act.
I agree Elvis should have studied acting-but he said many times he learned best -By doing. Many people are like that.

I think Elvis was a "method actor" . It was these kind of actors he admired .
Marlon Brando, James Dean etc. Where you put yourself into the character you portray, not just memorizing lines.

[jak]

I dont think Elvis was a good actor.To me he always looked like he was acting.I think you could tell he was trying.It always seemed forced to me.A truly good actor becomes the character and their performance reflects this.Elvis always looked stiff on the screen and just couldnt deliver his lines convincingly.Watch the water hose scene in Wild In The Country to see what I mean.Elvis was at his best just being himself.TTWII and EOT are not quite what the topic is about I know.Yet to me they show Elvis totally at ease and in his element.I dont think he was able to carry that over to a movie set as much.Even in a good movie like King Creole he is blown out of the water by his costars who were consumate pros.
Jak

[Donut]

Yes and No, he could act and I believe he was good given a script that challenged him and he challenged himself.... Couple of things here that will get the temperatures going here:-

Elvis didn't usually challenge the status quo, so nothing changed.

Elvis hid behind the Colonels skirt on many occasions when it suited his purposes.

Elvis liked the money the films generated.

IMO Elvis was passive aggressive, he could have and should have challenged the Colonel for better scripts and recorded albums separately.

Maybe you are right and Parker games were the perfect excuse for Elvis to do nothing about his career...

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Firstly, I have to ask what you mean by "getting the temperatures going."?

It was a broad statement that indicated that others might not agree with the opinion expressed.


Next I have to remind us all that Elvis did try to fire Parker several times. Does anyone remember what happened?If not, read Careless Love again.

You don't have to remind us/me, although you obviously feel you have to!


His life "is what it is." If we don't approve ; I wonder why we're here?

It is exactly this kind of superior & condescending remark (as with above) that causes trouble in threads.

Is there a need for that comment, why do you feel the need to challenge peoples status as a fan. I have never, ever questioned your status as a fan. What gives you the right to question mine?

Why do you feel you have to manipulate my post into something sinister?

Why haven't you challenged other posters in this thread :hmm:

[MissyM]

Elvis acted the way he was directed. Most films didn't take much real acting. But none the less, his acting was entertaining. But with in a few of the better scripts you see the glimps of what makes a great actor. He had depth, passion, and the ability to live his character. I do think that he certainly had what it would have taken, to refine all those qualities into a sensational actor. (not going to go to the who's fault that was area)

[KPM]

I dont think Elvis was a good actor.To me he always looked like he was acting.I think you could tell he was trying.It always seemed forced to me.A truly good actor becomes the character and their performance reflects this.Elvis always looked stiff on the screen and just couldnt deliver his lines convincingly.Watch the water hose scene in Wild In The Country to see what I mean.Elvis was at his best just being himself.TTWII and EOT are not quite what the topic is about I know.Yet to me they show Elvis totally at ease and in his element.I dont think he was able to carry that over to a movie set as much.Even in a good movie like King Creole he is blown out of the water by his costars who were consumate pros.
Jak
See how opinions can differ-I actually have shown that scene to people to point out how he could act.:D I do think you are correct about the stiff look on screen. But I always attributed that to terrible dialogue, direction and scripts which did not lend themselves to "a loose performance" Watch "the Trouble with Girls" and in many scenes I feel he was loose. I think when he walks thru the fair grounds with Sheree North -feeling her out on the murder, he acts very well. Its subjective opinion I guess.
As for "King Creole" Walter Matthau said he was pleasantly surprized with the acting Elvis did in the movie. But once again its his subjective opinion.

[cameron]

[/B]

It was a broad statement that indicated that others might not agree with the opinion expressed.



You don't have to remind us/me, although you obviously feel you have to!



It is exactly this kind of superior & condescending remark (as with above) that causes trouble in threads.

Is there a need for that comment, why do you feel the need to challenge peoples status as a fan. I have never, ever questioned your status as a fan. What gives you the right to question mine?

Why do you feel you have to manipulate my post into something sinister?

Why haven't you challenged other posters in this thread :hmm:

You removed my answer to you . Why??
Do you honestly think that was right?

[KPM]

Yes and No, he could act and I believe he was good given a script that challenged him and he challenged himself.... Couple of things here that will get the temperatures going here:-

Elvis didn't usually challenge the status quo, so nothing changed.

Elvis hid behind the Colonels skirt on many occasions when it suited his purposes.

Elvis liked the money the films generated.

IMO Elvis was passive aggressive, he could have and should have challenged the Colonel for better scripts and recorded albums separately.
As I have said a few time the Col. did not encourage growth by Elvis on any level. He wanted Elvis dependent on Parker. Someone who gets creative-is thinking. Thinking on a serious level is not what Parker wanted from Elvis. So Elvis should have pushed- but IMO the playing field was never level between Parker and Elvis from the moment Elvis signed the first contract with Parker. Many have pointed out the manipulative manner of Parker, he was a master at it.

[utmom2008]

Elvis acted the way he was directed. Most films didn't take much real acting. But none the less, his acting was entertaining. But with in a few of the better scripts you see the glimps of what makes a great actor. He had depth, passion, and the ability to live his character. I do think that he certainly had what it would have taken, to refine all those qualities into a sensational actor. (not going to go to the who's fault that was area)

I think you may be on to something Missy.:hmm::hmm: He had all the basic qualities, and was a born entertainer. Who knows?? Maybe with the right training and the right scripts he might have been much better. With those silly scripts he had to work with, Robert DeNiro would have looked bad...:mad:(n)

[LianaKaralivanou]

I often wonder what would have happened if Elvis had played in "A star is born" with Barbara Streisand...What if he missed the chance to prove himself as an actor??

[cameron]

I often wonder what would have happened if Elvis had played in "A star is born" with Barbara Streisand...What if he missed the chance to prove himself as an actor??
He would have been not only a great singer ..but a great actor.;)

[jak]

A Star Is Born wasnt a good film.By that time Elvis would have had a really rough time proving his acting credentials.It's probably best he didnt do it.
Jak

[jak]

See how opinions can differ-I actually have shown that scene to people to point out how he could act.:D I do think you are correct about the stiff look on screen. But I always attributed that to terrible dialogue, direction and scripts which did not lend themselves to "a loose performance" Watch "the Trouble with Girls" and in many scenes I feel he was loose. I think when he walks thru the fair grounds with Sheree North -feeling her out on the murder, he acts very well. Its subjective opinion I guess.
As for "King Creole" Walter Matthau said he was pleasantly surprized with the acting Elvis did in the movie. But once again its his subjective opinion.

It's all subjective I guess KPM.I cringe when I watch that seen.Im going to agree with you on The Trouble With Girls.Many hate that film,but I tend to rate it quite high compared to most of his films.I find that one to be a pretty good performance by Elvis.I think it's underated.Elvis managed a few nice performances over the years.I think the camera loved him.I just dont think had quite what it took to be a very good actor.If nothing else he did manage to entertain us,and that counts for something.
Jak

[KPM]

]A Star Is Born wasnt a good film[/B].By that time Elvis would have had a really rough time proving his acting credentials.It's probably best he didnt do it.
Jak
Have to agree it wasn't as good as the Judy Garland version.

[cameron]

A Star Is Born wasnt a good film.By that time Elvis would have had a really rough time proving his acting credentials.It's probably best he didnt do it.
Jak

:hmm:I liked the movie . Kris wasn't the best in it, but like the story line.
Who knows; it might have given him the morale booster he needed.

[Getlo]

I often wonder what would have happened if Elvis had played in "A star is born" with Barbara Streisand...What if he missed the chance to prove himself as an actor??

Had Elvis appeared in this film, it would be even more derided than it is today, and so would Elvis' acting career, such as it is.

The film was crap.

[Getlo]

Have to agree it wasn't as good as the Judy Garland version.

Which, in turn, was nowhere near as good as the original version ...

[Cryogenic]

He had great potential as an actor, but it was mostly untapped -- the reverse of what happened to him as a singer (IMO).

Without doubt, Elvis would have benefited from stronger material, and a willingness to learn, which was dulled over time (the two aren't mutually exclusive). Watch his death scene at the end of his very first movie -- that's a great piece of acting! It would be a cliche to cite "Jailhouse Rock", "King Creole" and "Flaming Star" as great showcases, but they're undeniably strong movies (though still somewhat B-movie-ish). However, I say "cliche" because lighter movies show an equal adeptness in Elvis, even if he may have been less committed overall, which most people tend to overlook -- I'm thinking of "Follow That Dream", "It Happened at the World's Fair", "Viva Las Vegas" and "Change of Habit". "Lighter" in those examples is not a dirty word, either. While I wouldn't be quick to deem any of them "great" movies, this "awful" badge his catalogue has gotten is greatly exaggerated, save for perhaps the nadir of his mid-60's movies, which Elvis himself was particularly appalled with. I also agree with Lonnie that Elvis seemed more natural in his last bunch of roles, which were acted in markedly better movies; interestingly, in spite of the exceedingly thin quality of what led up to those final films, he still gained experience and enriched his natural talent (IMO).

Of course, although the movies are what they are, I think Elvis was led astray from the start, and that he could have had a very different career path with another person managing him. In fact, Colonel Parker -- in an artistic sense -- was just about the single worst person Elvis could ever have hoped to wind up with. I could have said "anyone", but Elvis was especially unlucky in this regard because of who he was and where he'd come from. A lot like Palpatine in "Star Wars" preying on Anakin, thrust from a lowly existence into a corrupt, shifting world of politics and commerce, Parker used Elvis' naivete, lust for glory, fears and insularities, heightened by the passing of his mother, fully against him; Elvis was Parker's No. 1 bidding piece in the most elaborate circus act of all time. Of course, Parker himself literally came from the carnival, where he used to get up to tricks like painting birds a different colour or making chickens "dance" on hot plates to fool easy-to-please customers; these tricks were simply carried on and transfered to the big screen (without wishing to denigrate him, Elvis was essentially the chicken that "danced", while the movies themselves, with their interchangeable plots and settings, were the birds painted a different colour). If Elvis had starred in "The Rainmaker", he could have carved a different image for himself. There's that old saying: start as you mean to go on . . . Parker knew exactly what he was up to; Elvis was a maelstrom of contradictions who hoped to truly achieve something, unaware that an older, more experienced guy was watching out for him only because he was watching out for himself.

Another thing holding Elvis back, Parker aside, was the fact that he was Elvis Presley. In no time flat, perhaps right from the start, he was simply too big to be convincing in any role. Not only was he a powerful icon of teenage lust up and down the country when he made his first picture, which the girls were going to go crazy over no matter the circumstances, he also had astonishing looks which made it hard to buy him as any character in any movie -- since when has a country hick, a boxer, a racing car driver or an inner city doctor been that good looking? Even in bland surroundings, Elvis stands out. Just watch "Change of Habit". It's not an especially remarkable picture -- in fact, the sets and photography are overwhelmingly TV-movie-of-the-week-esque (IMO) -- yet Elvis looks incredible. It's kinda ridiculous how good looking he was; no matter the quality of the film, there's a slight element of absurdity in watching him; it's not merely the character you're seeing, but Elvis playing that character. The standard of his performances can, of course, be implicated, and it may have been possible to work around his looks to some extent (e.g. in "Charro", he looks a little more integrated because of the beard, in my opinion), but his looks alone seem to break the fourth wall.

Then there's Elvis himself. Elvis the Person, that is. He just wasn't mentally kitted out with the right stuff to make a go of it -- certainly not under Parker. Again, that's not to disparage him, for he certainly had his head on straight in the beginning; indeed, his objective approach to movie making would have been a dream come true for almost any director. Here was a fresh, vital young talent just entering the big time. He was willing to learn, honest about his limitations, hungry for recognition and respect -- and yes, photographed like a dream. There were so many directions he could have been taken in. But on the other hand, Elvis was exceedingly raw. While he had a natural unvarnished talent, he also had no prior experience of any kind, save the sort of adolescent dreaming we all go through. On top of that, his diction was a major stumbling block for the meatier roles -- simply put, I think Elvis needed formal vocal training (in fact, I believe this was offered to him, but Elvis took it as a slight, and angrily declined). Yet that could have been sorted out eventually. Clint Eastwood is not a magnificent actor, but he's a magnificent star -- and he's done some magnificent work. Elvis had at least that much potential within him (IMO), if not more. But I'm not here to disparage Clint, either. No one could ever be Clint Eastwood but Clint Eastwood, yet he's also the proof that the right sort of talent, with the right sort of image, with the right sort of material, can go a very long way. Look at Eastwood's first work. It's more or less as trashy as the worst Elvis film, yet he went on to make pulp masterpieces like Sergio Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns" and Don Siegel's "Dirty Harry", as well as directing films as diverse as "Heartbreak Ridge", "Unforgiven" and "Million Dollar Baby". Ultimately, I think the confidence Elvis lacked in the movie world is manifest in his final career -- just as the confidence he possessed in music is manifest in that career.

Now, while I wouldn't credit Elvis as a great actor, as I hope I made clear at the start, I would credit him with greatness. But there's a major difference between the two. When I watch an Elvis Presley picture, I'm very aware that it's Elvis on the screen, and not a completely fictional character. However, this is a sort of compound issue, partially extant because of Elvis, and partially because of how he was "used". The guy was never given lessons in a particular thing to flesh out a role, for example (save essentials, like horse riding for "Flaming Star", which became a lifelong interest). Nor was he ever given a radical makeover to physically embody a different person. Again, to bring up "Flaming Star", a movie set in a different century, Elvis still has slicked hair and an up-turned collar! In this respect, the movies are like a supplement or tease for the main thing -- Elvis the Singer. Maybe it's best that way. Of course, I wish he'd have done pictures and roles as powerful as those that Sinatra managed to get hold of ("From Here to Eternity", "The Manchurian Candidate"), but even Sinatra is remembered first and foremost as a vocalist and live entertainer. I don't like to get entangled in talks of divine providence or fate, but maybe it was Elvis' "destiny" to enrapture his soul and everyone else's with music, not drama -- for music is a sort of "living drama", where spontaneity, feel and timing are key; those transitive qualities that Elvis understood at a fundmental level; those things he embraced like a modern Dionysus; those things he will always be remembered for.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

You removed my answer to you . Why??
Do you honestly think that was right?

Because you only justified your rude behaviour, I'm sick of being attacked by you!
When you see fit to being more pleasant I will engage in conversation with you.

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND OR COMMENT ON MY POSTS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


As I have said a few time the Col. did not encourage growth by Elvis on any level. He wanted Elvis dependent on Parker. Someone who gets creative-is thinking. Thinking on a serious level is not what Parker wanted from Elvis. So Elvis should have pushed- but IMO the playing field was never level between Parker and Elvis from the moment Elvis signed the first contract with Parker. Many have pointed out the manipulative manner of Parker, he was a master at it.

Thank you for your civilised response KPM.

In response I would like to add that I believe that although Elvis was frustrated with his roles he could have spoken to other managers or lawyers regarding the removal of Parker. Elvis' overall demeanour was one of don't rock the boat!

I could be wrong but Elvis' apathy at times allowed the Colonel to manipulate him even more. It you look at Elvis through the stand point that he had such overwhelming talent the Colonel only diminished it, if Elvis had broken away the further potential could of been mind boggling!

Cryogenic, I enjoyed your post (y)

[JDD]

Jumpsuit Junkie ,
I think He just grew up so poor that though his image was one of generosity (and he was) and that the money wasn't so Important, I think it was, and he didn't want to risk rocking the boat and telling the Colonel and the studios its my way or no way.
Vernon was supposedly terrified of going back to nothing and had a lot of influence over his son to the end , it appears to me Elvis just thought it was easier sometimes to go along to get along .

JD

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

Jumpsuit Junkie ,
I think He just grew up so poor that though his image was one of generosity (and he was) and that the money wasn't so Important, I think it was, and he didn't want to risk rocking the boat and telling the Colonel and the studios its my way or no way.
Vernon was supposedly terrified of going back to nothing and had a lot of influence over his son to the end , it appears to me Elvis just thought it was easier sometimes to go along to get along .

JD

100% agreed with your assessment, I'll go further, for such a huge talent Elvis just didn't realise the pulling power and potential he had to be able to demand better movies or conditions. Elvis' insecurities had been played on for sure, you just wouldn't have seen Sinatra accept a movie script like Clambake?

I understand that the movie moguls of that time had power over it's stars that modern day actors simply would not accept once established. However the Colonel knew the pulling power Elvis had and used it to generate money for all concerned no matter how inferior the end product. The Colonel was short sighted in his goals for Elvis, everything was planned for the short term gain thinking the bubble might burst. This had a deleterious effect on Elvis' legacy, the low quality budget films chipped away at Elvis' credibility and by the time the likes of 'Charro' and 'Change of Habit' came around the audiences had drifted off to watch grittier films.

The '68 Special' had whetted the appetite for Elvis' 1969 return to live performing, but this could have easily been different! If Elvis had done the Christmas special that the Colonel wanted it could have spelled the end! Luckily Elvis and the people involved in the '68 project' stood up to the Colonel, if this had been the case earlier.......

[cameron]

People have long touted "Carless Love" as one of the best books about Elvis.
In there {and others} one can see that Elvis DID fire Parker several times . He DID try to get rid of him. IMO, Parker scared the heck out of both Elvis and Vernon because of their lack of knowledge of "business matters."
Parker came up with bills and money that Elvis would "owe" him to "be free."

Taking all that into consideration; {and since none of us know the amount or threats made by Parker} I can lay whatever blame there might be at the feet of the Presleys Attorneys .IMO, Elvis nor Vernon had the education to conduct "the business."

Getting back to the topic; IMO, had Elvis felt secure in his abilities , his talent and not had to worry about supporting everyone ....he could have done whatever he wanted; including acting.
When a person is put down and restrained long enough . they just give up.
That, IMO , is what I believe happened to Elvis along with his ill health.

[J.P]

i wouldn't go saying he was a good actor. he did ok in that area not so good tho. just like albert here said it just wasn't about the bad movies it was the job he did in the films. others have done it better.

[utmom2008]

The '68 Special' had whetted the appetite for Elvis' 1969 return to live performing, but this could have easily been different! If Elvis had done the Christmas special that the Colonel wanted it could have spelled the end! Luckily Elvis and the people involved in the '68 project' stood up to the Colonel, if this had been the case earlier.......

I agree with you JJ. Can you imagine a 33 year old Elvis sitting around the fireplace in an argyle sweater singing "Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire?"
I truly believe that would have been the end, and as a result we probably wouldn't be here on this board today.:supriced:

As for the acting....I sat down late last night and turned on the TV and there he was in "Girls Girls Girls." After about 15 minutes I couldn't take it any more, so I turned on EOT outtakes. Lord, Lord the acting was stiff....:notworthy:king:

[KPM]

100% agreed with your assessment, I'll go further, for such a huge talent Elvis just didn't realise the pulling power and potential he had to be able to demand better movies or conditions. Elvis' insecurities had been played on for sure, you just wouldn't have seen Sinatra accept a movie script like Clambake?

I understand that the movie moguls of that time had power over it's stars that modern day actors simply would not accept once established. However the Colonel knew the pulling power Elvis had and used it to generate money for all concerned no matter how inferior the end product. The Colonel was short sighted in his goals for Elvis, everything was planned for the short term gain thinking the bubble might burst. This had a deleterious effect on Elvis' legacy, the low quality budget films chipped away at Elvis' credibility and by the time the likes of 'Charro' and 'Change of Habit' came around the audiences had drifted off to watch grittier films.

The '68 Special' had whetted the appetite for Elvis' 1969 return to live performing, but this could have easily been different! If Elvis had done the Christmas special that the Colonel wanted it could have spelled the end! Luckily Elvis and the people involved in the '68 project' stood up to the Colonel, if this had been the case earlier.......
I posted an excerpt from a letter mentioned in the book Elvis Day by Day book and IMO it is so obvious how the Col. used his "persuasion" on Elvis to Parkers advantage and to Parkers thinking. He was so flattering to Elvis in the letter-yet warning Elvis about friends who want to put their arms around you etc... The message from Parker IMO was "only I can be trusted-watch everyone else for their motives."

I agree about the Col thinking the bubble might burst-Parker did not realise himself how talented Elvis was and the potential Elvis had. So IMO Parker wanted to run with what he was sure of- and that did not include creative growth as an actor nor musician. Instead of allowing Elvis to truely interact with creative people he limited the contact and banned people (like Leiber and Stoller) from any contact which might spur Elvis to want to do more- or want to think freely.

[utmom2008]

He was so flattering to Elvis in the letter-yet warning Elvis about friends who want to put their arms around you etc... The message from Parker IMO was "only I can be trusted-watch everyone else for their motives."

I have read that same story KPM. It's as though he wanted Elvis to feel like everyone else might be out to just make a buck off of him, that he was the only one that Elvis could ever truly trust...:mad:


So IMO Parker wanted to run with what he was sure of- and that did not include creative growth as and actor not musician.
I think the Colonel lived by the old expression "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

[cameron]

As for the acting....I sat down late last night and turned on the TV and there he was in "Girls Girls Girls." After about 15 minutes I couldn't take it any more, so I turned on EOT outtakes. Lord, Lord the acting was stiff....:notworthy:king:

I'm not going to disagree with you on some of his movies. To me; even when they were released ..they were only "feel good" movies. One knew it was for the Singing and the sheer enjoyment of just getting out for a time on Friday or Sat.night.:P

I've looked back at some movies my parents watched; say 50 or 60 years ago.....now that was stiff . ;)

[franny]

I thought Elvis was great in King Creole, but some of his later movies, they were just the same old storyline..(n)...Elvis wanted to be taken serious as an actor, but how could he when he had to read lines from some of those "silly" scripts..

He should have had some more roles like in KC, that would have made a big difference in his acting career...

franny

[jak]

I thought Elvis was great in King Creole, but some of his later movies, they were just the same old storyline..(n)...Elvis wanted to be taken serious as an actor, but how could he when he had to read lines from some of those "silly" scripts..

He should have had some more roles like in KC, that would have made a big difference in his acting career...

franny

That was surely his best role.Not just a good Elvis movie,but a good film period.The film had a great story and he was surrounded by a great cast.It's a shame he didnt have more quality roles such as that.

[franny]

That was surely his best role.Not just a good Elvis movie,but a good film period.The film had a great story and he was surrounded by a great cast.It's a shame he didnt have more quality roles such as that.

Exactly! Which is why I don't understand, why Elvis wasn't offered more roles like this?? I'm sure King Creole did great, so why not stick to this type of movie that had quality! (y)

franny

[Getlo]

you just wouldn't have seen Sinatra accept a movie script like Clambake?

Yes, you would.

The Kissing Bandit (1948) is acknowledged as one of the worst films of all time. Sinatra hated it. It is infinitely worse than Clambake or anything else Elvis did.

There were several others during Sinatra's career.

Sinatra, who had far more natural talent as an actor than Elvis, took a supporting role in From Here To Eternity in order to regain his acting credibility. He ended up winning an Oscar for that, and he is regarded today as a fine - if generally overlooked - actor.

Had Elvis taken second billing in the 60s, his acting career may have turned out better.

And we can only blame The Colonel so far: Elvis could easily have said he'd take lesser parts, or refused to accept the crappy scripts he was offered over and over again.

[MissyM]

Why wasn't he offered better roles? Good question. Oh and I never liked Sinatra at all. Never thought he was a good actor. Matter of fact I thought Elvis was as good as some of them making better movies. Now Gregory Peck,fantastic. And John Wayne- same old persona in every movie. And yet he was thought of as great.

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

I posted an excerpt from a letter mentioned in the book Elvis Day by Day book and IMO it is so obvious how the Col. used his "persuasion" on Elvis to Parkers advantage and to Parkers thinking. He was so flattering to Elvis in the letter-yet warning Elvis about friends who want to put their arms around you etc... The message from Parker IMO was "only I can be trusted-watch everyone else for their motives."

I agree about the Col thinking the bubble might burst-Parker did not realise himself how talented Elvis was and the potential Elvis had. So IMO Parker wanted to run with what he was sure of- and that did not include creative growth as an actor nor musician. Instead of allowing Elvis to truely interact with creative people he limited the contact and banned people (like Leiber and Stoller) from any contact which might spur Elvis to want to do more- or want to think freely.

Exactly the way I feel (y)


Yes, you would.

The Kissing Bandit (1948) is acknowledged as one of the worst films of all time. Sinatra hated it. It is infinitely worse than Clambake or anything else Elvis did.

There were several others during Sinatra's career.

You comments go to prove the point that Sinatra is viewed as the better actor although he probably had just as many 'Turkey Films' as Elvis.

[Getlo]

You comments go to prove the point that Sinatra is viewed as the better actor although he probably had just as many 'Turkey Films' as Elvis.

Nowhere near as many. Overall, Sinatra's screen work is of a high standard all round ...

[utmom2008]

Why wasn't he offered better roles? Good question. Oh and I never liked Sinatra at all. Never thought he was a good actor. Matter of fact I thought Elvis was as good as some of them making better movies. Now Gregory Peck,fantastic. And John Wayne- same old persona in every movie. And yet he was thought of as great.
I agree with this post Missy...agree with everything you just said! (y)

[utmom2008]

I'm not going to disagree with you on some of his movies. To me; even when they were released ..they were only "feel good" movies.

Last night when I was watching "Girls Girls Girls" I had to flip on the guide section. Guess how the movie was described?? "girls flirt with handsome fisherman.":supriced::supriced:Who in the world could do much acting in a movie with a description like that????:mad:

[cameron]

Last night when I was watching "Girls Girls Girls" I had to flip on the guide section. Guess how the movie was described?? "girls flirt with handsome fisherman.":supriced::supriced:Who in the world could do much acting in a movie with a description like that????:mad:

I agree. IMO, Elvis was "movie lands" gimmic . I've read that "an Elvis movie was a guaranteed money maker" at that time.
It seems they just had to throw in some songs with Elvis and some girls .
The rest was immaterial as far as any plot/story.It was always the same.

Having said that ; I remember looking forward to his next movie anyway. ;)
Of course, I was a lot younger then .It was probably why I never took him so seriously until later in life too.

[KPM]

Which, in turn, was nowhere near as good as the original version ...
I tried to watch the original 1930s version in the 60s on what was called "the late late show" it just does not hold up well (as many 1930s movies don't). Dialogue and acting were just how can I put it-hammy. Even the Garland version is pretty dated, but I still would rank the Garland version as better than the 76 attempt.

[utmom2008]

I tried to watch the original 1930s version in the 60s on what was called "the late late show" it just does not hold up well (as many 1930s movies don't). Dialogue and acting were just how can I put it-hammy. Even the Garland version is pretty dated, but I still would rank the Garland version as better than the 76 attempt.
Agreed KPM. If the actors of today acted like the actors did in the 30's, they would be run out of town. (n)

[marina]

I wish he was given better scripts I think he was fantastic with what he had to work with, I liked him in live a little love a little where showed a more mature role, unfortunately he was under-rated by people, and I think that was the demise of Elvis.

[seaward]

Parker and his selfishness combined with Elvis' unanswered obedience to him was the downward spiral of a potential acting career.

I consider Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, and Viva Las Vegas as Presley's greatest films. I think Blue Hawaii was great as well but too over-rated. Meanwhile, like any other Elvis fan knows, serious films like Flaming Star and Wild In The Country were overlooked by the public. I can't totally blame the public then. It was a time when musicals were very popular and well accepted.

[SleepyJack]

I think the huge success of Blue Hawaii signalled the end of any chance Elvis might have had to make better movies......The colonel must have been the happiest man on earth.....might explain why he wanted Elvis to keep making the movie again and again and again....

[Jumpsuit Junkie]

I think the huge success of Blue Hawaii signalled the end of any chance Elvis might have had to make better movies......The colonel must have been the happiest man on earth.....might explain why he wanted Elvis to keep making the movie again and again and again....

Totally agree the cash cow was launched with the success of Blue Hawaii.

[Frankieg]

Elvis had potential to be a great serious actor, or a great like comedian.

There was simply alot more to the man, than what people saw, particulary in his later films.

Sadly, that potential was never fully realized.

Elvis' greatest acting performance, IMHO, was in the classic 1958,"KING CREOLE".

[jak]

Another way to look at his tenure in the movies is this.His dramatic films didnt fare as well as the formula films.Flaming Star was a good film with a superd director and great cast.However it's box office wasnt that great.The same for Wild In The Country.He was really just making the kind of films that his fans were paying to see beacuse the more serious films didnt rake in the money.
Jak

[KPM]

Another way to look at his tenure in the movies is this.His dramatic films didnt fare as well as the formula films.Flaming Star was a good film with a superd director and great cast.However it's box office wasnt that great.The same for Wild In The Country.He was really just making the kind of films that his fans were paying to see beacuse the more serious films didnt rake in the money.
Jak
Excellent point-IMO Col. Parker played that to the hilt. Pointing to the grosses of the dramas to the money made by "Blue Hawaii" Now a days an actor or singer/actor is accepted in just about any type roll. For Elvis the dramas did not draw, because adults thought they would see the "Hip shaking rocker". Teens heard it was not the "hip shaking rocker" movie so they also did not turn out in droves. Catch 22.

[jak]

Excellent point-IMO Col. Parker played that to the hilt. Pointing to the grosses of the dramas to the money made by "Blue Hawaii" Now a days an actor or singer/actor is accepted in just about any type roll. For Elvis the dramas did not draw, because adults thought they would see the "Hip shaking rocker". Teens heard it was not the "hip shaking rocker" movie so they also did not turn out in droves. Catch 22.

I've always been kinda surprised his fans didnt turn out more for his dramatac films.They are famous for their loyalty.Maybe he just made to many period and was flooding the market?He would have been better off maybe doing just one film every year or two.
Jak

[Diane]

I've been surprised by these fans too Jak but then I feel these are the same fans who didn't like the new songs he tried to introduce on stage a few times. They wanted to keep him the way he was in the 50's singing Hound Dog etc. but Elvis had grown and evolved and had strong feelings for these new songs that showed his potential as a great singer so much more. I'm talking about songs like Rags To Riches, Long Black Limousine, Any Day Now but they weren't having any. I guess he grew up some but some fans didn't.

Diane

[MissyM]

What always amazed me is Elvis's versatility. He could sing, dance, be funny, be serious. If all that was nurtured in a positive manner, I believe his acting would have evolved and maybe taken to a higher priority than the corny films. Look at what some of the other singers have done. Some started out singers and proved to be good actors. Elvis was not given the chance to do so.

[KPM]

I've always been kinda surprised his fans didnt turn out more for his dramatac films.They are famous for their loyalty.Maybe he just made to many period and was flooding the market?He would have been better off maybe doing just one film every year or two.
Jak
I know the Col. had him pretty well sewn up into the mid 60s with movie contracts. 3 a year is a lot of films.
Perhaps the better idea (creatively) would have been 2 a year -one outside the normal for Elvis to let him grow and be accepted as an actor and one a musical.

[franny]

I know the Col. had him pretty well sewn up into the mid 60s with movie contracts. 3 a year is a lot of films.
Perhaps the better idea (creatively) would have been 2 a year -one outside the normal for Elvis to let him grow and be accepted as an actor and one a musical.

Yes and according to the Col. "nobody" told Elvis what to do, but you're right the Col had him sewn and locked into those movie contracts...Could Elvis not have got out of them or at least some of the movies or maybe even had the contract broken?

Good idea, I think 2 movies a year would have been a better idea!

franny

[KPM]

Yes and according to the Col. "nobody" told Elvis what to do, but you're right the Col had him sewn and locked into those movie contracts...Could Elvis not have got out of them or at least some of the movies or maybe even had the contract broken?

Good idea, I think 2 movies a year would have been a better idea!

franny
Once again I think the Col. impressed into Elvis the idea that- we have signed the contracts we have to honor them. Its my understanding the long term deals did not name specific projects and people like Hal Wallis would search for projects that they wanted to make with Elvis. So the contracts pretty much left what projects were to be made up to the producers and studios. Whether Elvis was made fully aware of this I don't know.When he signed the multi picture deal with Hal Wallis he thought his first feature was going to be a non-musical "The Rainmaker" with Katherine Hepburn and Burt Lancaster. He said so in a couple interviews-but we know it did not happen.
I have read Elvis hated Clambake, thought it was truely below par-but he had to make it. So I think he felt he had to honor what he was obligated to do, but I don't think when he signed that first deal he knew what they truely had in mind for him.

[franny]

Once again I think the Col. impressed into Elvis the idea that- we have signed the contracts we have to honor them. Its my understanding the long term deals did not name specific projects and people like Hal Wallis would search for projects that they wanted to make with Elvis. So the contracts pretty much left what projects were to be made up to the producers and studios. Whether Elvis was made fully aware of this I don't know.When he signed the multi picture deal with Hal Wallis he thought his first feature was going to be a non-musical "The Rainmaker" with Katherine Hepburn and Burt Lancaster. He said so in a couple interviews-but we know it did not happen.
I have read Elvis hated Clambake, thought it was truely below par-but he had to make it. So I think he felt he had to honor what he was obligated to do, but I don't think when he signed that first deal he knew what they truely had in mind for him.

Thanks, KPM! Also, I did not know about Rainmaker. I think Elvis hated a few of his movies, same storyline over and over again...

franny

[Kris P]

He had great potential as an actor, but it was mostly untapped -- the reverse of what happened to him as a singer (IMO).

Without doubt, Elvis would have benefited from stronger material, and a willingness to learn, which was dulled over time (the two aren't mutually exclusive). Watch his death scene at the end of his very first movie -- that's a great piece of acting! It would be a cliche to cite "Jailhouse Rock", "King Creole" and "Flaming Star" as great showcases, but they're undeniably strong movies (though still somewhat B-movie-ish). However, I say "cliche" because lighter movies show an equal adeptness in Elvis, even if he may have been less committed overall, which most people tend to overlook -- I'm thinking of "Follow That Dream", "It Happened at the World's Fair", "Viva Las Vegas" and "Change of Habit". "Lighter" in those examples is not a dirty word, either. While I wouldn't be quick to deem any of them "great" movies, this "awful" badge his catalogue has gotten is greatly exaggerated, save for perhaps the nadir of his mid-60's movies, which Elvis himself was particularly appalled with. I also agree with Lonnie that Elvis seemed more natural in his last bunch of roles, which were acted in markedly better movies; interestingly, in spite of the exceedingly thin quality of what led up to those final films, he still gained experience and enriched his natural talent (IMO).

Of course, although the movies are what they are, I think Elvis was led astray from the start, and that he could have had a very different career path with another person managing him. In fact, Colonel Parker -- in an artistic sense -- was just about the single worst person Elvis could ever have hoped to wind up with. I could have said "anyone", but Elvis was especially unlucky in this regard because of who he was and where he'd come from. A lot like Palpatine in "Star Wars" preying on Anakin, thrust from a lowly existence into a corrupt, shifting world of politics and commerce, Parker used Elvis' naivete, lust for glory, fears and insularities, heightened by the passing of his mother, fully against him; Elvis was Parker's No. 1 bidding piece in the most elaborate circus act of all time. Of course, Parker himself literally came from the carnival, where he used to get up to tricks like painting birds a different colour or making chickens "dance" on hot plates to fool easy-to-please customers; these tricks were simply carried on and transfered to the big screen (without wishing to denigrate him, Elvis was essentially the chicken that "danced", while the movies themselves, with their interchangeable plots and settings, were the birds painted a different colour). If Elvis had starred in "The Rainmaker", he could have carved a different image for himself. There's that old saying: start as you mean to go on . . . Parker knew exactly what he was up to; Elvis was a maelstrom of contradictions who hoped to truly achieve something, unaware that an older, more experienced guy was watching out for him only because he was watching out for himself.Another thing holding Elvis back, Parker aside, was the fact that he was Elvis Presley. In no time flat, perhaps right from the start, he was simply too big to be convincing in any role. Not only was he a powerful icon of teenage lust up and down the country when he made his first picture, which the girls were going to go crazy over no matter the circumstances, he also had astonishing looks which made it hard to buy him as any character in any movie -- since when has a country hick, a boxer, a racing car driver or an inner city doctor been that good looking? Even in bland surroundings, Elvis stands out. Just watch "Change of Habit". It's not an especially remarkable picture -- in fact, the sets and photography are overwhelmingly TV-movie-of-the-week-esque (IMO) -- yet Elvis looks incredible. It's kinda ridiculous how good looking he was; no matter the quality of the film, there's a slight element of absurdity in watching him; it's not merely the character you're seeing, but Elvis playing that character. The standard of his performances can, of course, be implicated, and it may have been possible to work around his looks to some extent (e.g. in "Charro", he looks a little more integrated because of the beard, in my opinion), but his looks alone seem to break the fourth wall.

Then there's Elvis himself. Elvis the Person, that is. He just wasn't mentally kitted out with the right stuff to make a go of it -- certainly not under Parker. Again, that's not to disparage him, for he certainly had his head on straight in the beginning; indeed, his objective approach to movie making would have been a dream come true for almost any director. Here was a fresh, vital young talent just entering the big time. He was willing to learn, honest about his limitations, hungry for recognition and respect -- and yes, photographed like a dream. There were so many directions he could have been taken in. But on the other hand, Elvis was exceedingly raw. While he had a natural unvarnished talent, he also had no prior experience of any kind, save the sort of adolescent dreaming we all go through. On top of that, his diction was a major stumbling block for the meatier roles -- simply put, I think Elvis needed formal vocal training (in fact, I believe this was offered to him, but Elvis took it as a slight, and angrily declined). Yet that could have been sorted out eventually. Clint Eastwood is not a magnificent actor, but he's a magnificent star -- and he's done some magnificent work. Elvis had at least that much potential within him (IMO), if not more. But I'm not here to disparage Clint, either. No one could ever be Clint Eastwood but Clint Eastwood, yet he's also the proof that the right sort of talent, with the right sort of image, with the right sort of material, can go a very long way. Look at Eastwood's first work. It's more or less as trashy as the worst Elvis film, yet he went on to make pulp masterpieces like Sergio Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns" and Don Siegel's "Dirty Harry", as well as directing films as diverse as "Heartbreak Ridge", "Unforgiven" and "Million Dollar Baby". Ultimately, I think the confidence Elvis lacked in the movie world is manifest in his final career -- just as the confidence he possessed in music is manifest in that career.Now, while I wouldn't credit Elvis as a great actor, as I hope I made clear at the start, I would credit him with greatness. But there's a major difference between the two. When I watch an Elvis Presley picture, I'm very aware that it's Elvis on the screen, and not a completely fictional character. However, this is a sort of compound issue, partially extant because of Elvis, and partially because of how he was "used". The guy was never given lessons in a particular thing to flesh out a role, for example (save essentials, like horse riding for "Flaming Star", which became a lifelong interest). Nor was he ever given a radical makeover to physically embody a different person. Again, to bring up "Flaming Star", a movie set in a different century, Elvis still has slicked hair and an up-turned collar! In this respect, the movies are like a supplement or tease for the main thing -- Elvis the Singer. Maybe it's best that way. Of course, I wish he'd have done pictures and roles as powerful as those that Sinatra managed to get hold of ("From Here to Eternity", "The Manchurian Candidate"), but even Sinatra is remembered first and foremost as a vocalist and live entertainer. I don't like to get entangled in talks of divine providence or fate, but maybe it was Elvis' "destiny" to enrapture his soul and everyone else's with music, not drama -- for music is a sort of "living drama", where spontaneity, feel and timing are key; those transitive qualities that Elvis understood at a fundmental level; those things he embraced like a modern Dionysus; those things he will always be remembered for.


You sure set a high standard with these sorts of posts, Cryo..........great reading.

Hope you don't mind, I bolded a couple of paragraphs that particularly stood out to me. You observations in relation to Parker are spot on, in my book, with another example being the 'Star Is Born' deal. Whilst I have read conflicting accounts of the this saga, ie either Parker nixed the deal, or that Elvis himself eventually became cold on the idea of starring next to Streisand in this movie, I tend to lean toward Parker sticking his Sith Sword in on the deal.
I think Parker also white anted the 'New Gladiators' documentary, which I think may have provided EP with some sort of distraction from his otherwise destructive lifestyle.

Now, Clint.............a favorite of mine.........not a magnificent actor!?..........I agree, though as you so eloquently put it, a magnificent star.
Often when viewing Eastwood's 1968 classic 'Coogan's Bluff', I wonder what a 33 year old Presley could have done with this part.....not to mention the later role of vigilante cop Dirty Harry.

Keep 'em coming, Cryo.........may the force be with you.

Edit:
just read a pertinent (to this topic) line by Jerry Schilling posted elsewhere on this MB, "This guy (Elvis) wasn’t a drugger. This guy was a creative giant that they gave morsels to, and it just didn’t sustain him."

[Getlo]

When he signed the multi picture deal with Hal Wallis he thought his first feature was going to be a non-musical "The Rainmaker" with Katherine (Katharine) Hepburn and Burt Lancaster. He said so in a couple interviews-but we know it did not happen.

But he did screen test for it. It was definitely filmed, but it's not known if the footage still exists, or was even kept for very long.

Elvis did a scene from the movie with actor Frank Faylen (1905 - 1985) (who, by way of trivia, used to be the father-in-law of Regis Philbin).

There are only about half a dozen photos from this screen test; they're in one of my books, but I can't remember which one.

[TCBnAflash]

Every time I watch, King Creole I can't help but get upset sometimes of the potential he had in being KNOWN an AWESOME actor.
For someone with no acting experience he really did an great job all his movies.

[edbdmiddy]

Yep I think he was a good actor but he never got the chance to really prove it because they made him sing in all his movies and he did not want to do that . He wanted a good acting role.

[renapap05]

Elvis was a really GREAT GREAT actor...He could act in good quality movies if Parker have let him to do that:angry::angry::angry:

[GIORGIA]

For me Elvis is A GOOD ACTOR!Is TRUE,SINCERE and NATURAL!Because for me the talent is natural!And Elvis is a natural talent!

[GIORGIA]

Example:KING CREOLE,JAILHOUSEROCK,CHANG OF HABIT,LOVING YOU and WILD IN THE COUNTRY

[phil]

wild in the country flaming star. never have seen king creole